• Department of Justice changes purpose of Federal Law intent rule gay families outside of law
• married persons approval of groups of citizens
• USDA US   1996 decreases provision disqualifies gay households = protection
• means no harm to particular group
• JUDGE
• status quo  congress concern to preserve incrimentilization?
• BONATO
• No, prior Federal Defers to States
• Power determines course
• JUDGE
• status quo states control
• BONATO
• 230 years Federal responsibility changes rules only allowed to marry
• Status quo continues hetero status or gender status
• no definition of marriage in place
• DOMA provides nation wide protection to marriage
• State control eligibility
• ceremonial  exand  state__________
• first time DOMA departed from this created an exclusion
• only changes who is to marry
• JUDGE
• Financial Impact marry /insurances
• BONATO
• 1  Congress acknowledges 10 areas of benefits rejected Congress fiduciary office
• 1996 saved dollars  question if this is what was said..
• deny benefits why this group until 2014 inserted
• 6 Rationales
• JUDGE
• ? limited to these?
• BONATO
• No, 1996 Justifications
• morality pristine traditional marriage or not at all
• Commonwealth of Massachusetts suppresses definition of traditional marriage
• not a valid
• benefits exclusion not a legislative end
• DOMA denies Federal Protection plus classes already married
• Federal Protection stay same DOMA denies same sex protections
• Traditional marriage APP 1996 if Congress believed traditional obvious
• denies protections to same sex familes does nothing
• penalizes children and couples
• State Sovereignty Section 3 overrides
• Status quo arguments
• JUDGE
• what interest to preserve status quo?
• BONATO

Not an interest mean to other purpose heartland planning process

• DOMA  singles out certain people
• Congress to proceed on issue one step at a time
• who is married and who is not
• 1998 Supreme Court strike tradition
• 1948 49 Congress Law marriage same race couples argument
• 30 States had laws prohibitions
• Fed Agency not deal with same sex couples effects who is married and who is not
• Status Quo no rational basis for DOMA
• JUDGE
• Incrimentilization?
• BONATO
• toward what?
• JUDGE
• no same sex marriage legislative purpose absolute ban on same sex marriage
• Congress has no interest in uniform law
• BONATO
• ? Federal Jurisdiction 200 years by states
• ? Congress interest rational basis
• no Federal interest definition of marriage
• definition not disputed not in states power concede……..
• we think case…………….
• Federal Law creates differences measure sufficiently related
• Federal Government
• section 5 voting rights act
• tethered to fifth amendment
• clearly DOMA tethered creates problems
• what it means?
• Federal definition of marriage
• before DOMA
• JUDGE
• no rational basis?
• BONATO
• subject to heightened scrutiny
• not necessary
• JUDGE
• rational I agree  not on heightened scrutiny
• BONATO
• States historical definition undermines states other challenges strict scrutiny
• child support not apply
• different from DOMA
• US Circuit…revisit ruling Child support 1^st Circuit upheld
• both interstate enforcement
• Defense argued
• 1^st Circuit Court supports sanctions no purpose or effect
• protect integrity rational basis   military
• court homosexual not protected
• first circuit found mandated
• 1105AM
• BONATO
• continues did not consider sexual orientation
• Defense has no affadavits provided
• court applied
• no classification effect
• 2 characteristic evidence  state trooper successfully key criteria
• minority no federal law to discriminate job ed??? not sure here..ja
• Federal Hate crimes misappropriate bill
• numerous state laws political power alienation
• destroy sexual orientation set in ways very early?
• Final
• DOMA intrudes on rights
• fundamental right burdened by DOMA
• DEFENSE
• Acknowledge strict scrutiny applies SJC family relationship defines identity
• Congress should be careful/ instead not to negate marital status and all the purposes
• State S?  Fed C? O advertising this takes away clarity and security
• Defense acknowledges burden same sex couples DOMA
• 2  Burden Denied equal protection check forms require single or head of household
• BONATO
• conclusion Justice Kennedy constitution neither tolerates classes of citizens
• society based on rule of law state neutrality DOMA antitheses of Constitution
• applies benefits denied
• Defense system allegations Commonwealth case….?
• DEFENSE
• 2  Fed Government can control US expanded meaning of marriage spouse defense agrees fact Federal Funds
• JUDGE
• When did it become a Federal Matter??
• need precedent pre DOMA
• Fed has to
• Tradition involved statute whitch 1996 general interest
• DOMA for Fed Purposes
• Policy defense of marriage act
• Rational basis
• Colough vs Doe
• rational speculation argument repl on DOMA
• Plaintiffs 28-32 Defense do not rely on court nt before the court
• 1996 Congress proceed states had authority to decide understand spouse/marriage
• change how those words understood
• JUDGE
• why did it become a Federal Interest?
• why define the usage?? not sure here what was said ja
• example 20 states average 20 don’t show consistency
• DEFENSE
• states have not same sex marriage
• JUDGE
• burden on Federal Gov to track??
• states had popular vote to stop same sex marriage unsettled issue
• Status quo circumstance state provides answer
• DEFENSE
• what is the status quo?
• status quo trying back before 1996 couple hetero only want status quo to change? JUDGE WANTS ARGUMENT
• status quo court said
• status quo state said
• status quo federal said
• circumstance not law
• DEFENSE
• no statute Federal level
• JUDGE
• Jurisprudence never any cases on the issue incredible! defined on states role how come until DOMA state matter??
• DEFENSE
• state had control authority
• JUDGE
• first question.. who said so?
• DEFENSE
• decisions/state/interstitial/Federal conflict laws disputes congress changes approach 1996 who can marry increase changes same sex marriage need to freeze
• understanding of marriage DOMA freezes understanding to heterosexual marriage
• absence created Federal marital
•  FIRE FIRE FIRE DRILL OUT OF BUILDING

• 1215PM return from evactuation
• DEFENSE DOJ
• Rational basis, with out Congressional action  Federal Agencies mandated to keep track..decision 15 temporarily preserves Status Quo
• 15 of         paragraph @ end of argument
• JUDGE
• incrimentalization
• DEFENSE
• Incrimentalization Congress justified social issues one step at a time
• JUDGE
• Status Quo
• Status or deters requirement?
• DEFENSE
• Federal Gov Congress kept
• JUDGE
• showed sides partiality
• DEFENSE
• until Congress decides Federal benefits to same sex couples
• things could change Economy
• Incrimentalization comes in Congress can change ties to argument
• Federal one step @ a time
• Supreme Court says States can be Laboratories for DOMA State experiment
• should not dictate when Federal status applies
• 1 Argument DOMA Family Law
• should not subject to scrutiny no precedent for high scrutiny
• what courts ask?  congress
• what done what powers tax conditions with in congress
• DOMA does not
• 2 nd Argument
• damages Family integrity
• social recognition dignity security right family unit
• right to Family integrity Case law together custodial care contra family privacy
• social recognition no precedent to rights
• JUDGE
• Your position?
• DEFENSE
• Fund integrity of family unit
• including marriage
• JUDGE
• basis system of marriage approved by states?
• DEFENSE
• Right saying does not encompass dignity security familial  I say deepend effect
• Social Security married Federal Law
• 3  heightened scrutiny sexual orientation how to meet??
• __________vs gates
• show same sex class rejected cook classification rejected
• P61 top gov classified sub to increased scrutiny
• focused a Plaintiffs focus on court said sex … not a class
• Fumor vs Lawrence not a suspect class
• summary judgement
• class same sex is class
• appeals unnecessary to get into court NY classification
• Sentence no case sited did court ………………..countries
• 5 decisions proposition Boohang vs Murphy
• no suspect escapes classification
• equal protection test not applicable
• Rodriguez Vs hh Welfare
• 2 Classification
• neither distinct inherent sub classifications
• 3 decisions the court came to effect these cases
• does not qualify no precedent to say classification suspect
• This court Cook homosexual not suspect classification for review
• Constitutional argument
• Statutory argument
• Den Harris Standing Plaintiff position? OPM Dismissed as defendant
• Federal Standing health benefits
• doesn’t have …
• 2 issues standing this and Federal Court
• Statutory instruction provision Federal employee benefits
• Broad HPFB override Plaintiff statues cover all family members
• Status spouse unmarried step child aside constitutional issues
• relying on broad goals HPFB
• Obviously say anything do not actually leg history does not ambiguous statutory text  denied as survivor ……….federal ………
• one rout to seek protection board review denied
• petition concluded not elegible DOMA
• Fed Circuit no determination Mr Herrick elegible for annuity
• survivor circuit declare installed to emboldment does not violate 2 arguments
• 1 OPM abandoned  not decision quotes leaves familymember
• 2 OPM did not appeal cannot r???
• OPM does not have to appeal
• both arguments issued precuted at Federal Circuit Presidential agrees with DOMA as policy believe rational urge court
• BONATO
• FEHP  can be construed statute suspect different constutional F I own not ceiling no reason state can cover others Nancy Gill cannot provide health insurance
• Harris Standing same sex claim not be dismissed pending issue only remaining
• Constitutionality this court has jurisdiction Issue constitutionality of DOMA
• has stayed its hands
• MSPP
• Justice Bodler no requirement DOMA not named could not elect survivor benefit
• DOMA not married could not elect survivor benefit evidence of intentional annuity plus health insurance demand HB Statute
• no Wilkin spouse waited to provide benefits reconsidered decision
• no record doc decision therefore not enrolled..not eligible
• constitutionality requirement
• JUDGE
• 2 merites
• 1 authority marital status 28PBSepCt DomRel
• 2 statutes same sex 416H sect fam statute court say validly married
• BONATO
• fluidity
• DOMA more burdensome
• ask 2 state law and gender
• DEFENSE
• question authorithy Federal Circuit
• 2pt social security act DOMA implied legal rule not to dismiss
• rational basis? no objection to …….
• JUDGE
• well presented both sides