Administration of Obama announced that it will not defend the principal section of the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) in the federal court.
What does that mean?
It means that President Obama refuses to defend the idea that marriage is an union between a man and a woman (section 3 of DOMA) from a federal point of view.
Even if this law remains in effect, "the President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard [of stricter judicial review] and is therefore unconstitutional," said Atty. Gen. Eric Holder, "Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases."
It is "a massively important step forward in the recognition that DOMA is unconstitutional and does not deserve the kind of efforts to defend it that we’ve been seeing." said Jennifer C. Pizer of Lambda Legal, a gay organization.
Remember that Obama had declared evolving on the idea of the marriage opened to gays and lesbians: “this is an issue that I’m still wrestling with, others are still wrestling with. What I know is that at minimum, a baseline is that there has to be a strong, robust civil union available to all gay and lesbian couples.”
Inevitably this decision make us think of prop. 8's case in California. Just after the announcement of the news, Attorneys fighting against this proposition 8 asked the Ninth Circuit Court to stop the stay. The panel of judges had introduced this stay waiting to make a definite decision but during this period of decision, gay and lesbian couple can't get married.
“There can be no justification for prolonging the suffering of plaintiffs and the tens of thousands of couples like them for an additional year.” wrote attorney Ted Olson before to add: “Having prevailed at trial, having demonstrated that they had a fundamental right to marry, and having shown beyond dispute that Proposition 8 works irreparable harm upon gay and lesbian Californians by denying them that right,” Olson wrote, “it is simply intolerable for this Court to continue to deny them that right and to perpetuate their pain for such a length of time — especially given that this Court itself has recognized that Proponents may well have no right to appeal at all.”