Arguments over the federal law defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman sparked strong rhetoric in hour-long oral arguments at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit on Wednesday.
Paul Clement of Bancroft, representing members of Congress who support the federal Defense of Marriage Act, argued that “government can rationally say [marriage] is too important of an institution to make a change to.” Mary Bonauto of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, representing individual challengers to the law, argued that, “For the entire history of our country, the one constant of marriage law has been change.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
