Contact Us

Have a suggestion for an item? Send it along using our contact page.

Enter your email address to join the GLAA Announcements list

DC Gay Etc

About GLAA Forum

GLAA is pleased to offer an online site for discussion of affairs that affect the quality of life of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender communities of the District of Columbia. Through this social networking media GLAA aspires to connect to new generations of LGBT advocates and straight allies and to strengthen our organization's abilities to communicate and broadcast to a broad and diverse population.

We warmly invite you to join us at our regularly scheduled membership meetings, held the 2nd and 4th Tuesdays of each month. Please visit for a list of meeting dates and locations and other important information regarding our group's mission and projects.

Support GLAA

GLAA is an all volunteer organisation. Our expenses are paid by our yearly Awards Banquet and by membership dues and contributions. If you would like to join GLAA this can be done through PayPal or through our membership form.

« White House reiterates that marriage is an issue for the states | Main | Inauguration 2013 - Guns and God »

January 22, 2013

House Republicans submit brief in DOMA case

The so-called Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, or BLAG, which was created by House Republicans to defend DOMA after President Obama's Department of Justice declared the law unconstitutional and refused to defend it, has filed its brief in United States v. Windsor, the DOMA case from the Second Circuit that is scheduled for oral arguments in the Supreme Court in late March.

Lyle Denniston reports at SCOTUSblog. Chris Geidner reports at BuzzFeed.

My initial reaction based on a quick scan, and on the descriptions by Geidner and Denniston, is that this is all well-trod ground and our advocates will do a solid job of refuting it.

Here's my interested layman's comment on one much-disputed and central point: Do we have to be abjectly helpless, like Miss Gish on an ice floe approaching the falls, in order to gain heightened scrutiny under the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause? If so, then by seeking it in any kind of serious way we prove ourselves unworthy of it. That sounds like a Catch-22 to me (which may nonetheless pass constitutional muster; I'm just saying).


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

The comments to this entry are closed.