Opposition to Motion to Stay- 1 -
Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law256 S. Occidental Blvd.Los Angeles, CA 90057213/388-8693
This action challenges the discriminatory denial of benefits under theImmigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101,
, to members of lawfulmarriages solely because the spouses are of the same sex. Plaintiffs contend thatmembers of marriages lawful under the law of the state of celebration are entitled torecognition as “spouses” under the INA regardless of their members’ sex or sexualorientation. Defendants concede as much, yet refuse to recognize same-sex marriagesas valid predicates for the granting of immigration benefits pursuant to § 3(a) of theDefense of Marriage Act, Pub. L. 104-199, § 3(a), 110 Stat. 2419,
1 U.S.C.§ 7 (“DOMA”), a statue defendants themselves concede is unconstitutional. Defendantsrefuse to extend to plaintiffs and those similarly situated even
protectionfrom illegal status, forced unemployment or illegal employment, and detention or removal pending a final determination whether the courts agree with defendants thatDOMA is unconstitutional.For a second time, defendants move the Court to stay all proceedings herein— including argued and submitted motions aimed at saving plaintiffs and those similarlysituated from irreparable injury—on the ground the Supreme Court
decide inanother action whether DOMA § 3 denies equal protection.
Petition for Writof Certiorari,
United States v. Windsor
, No. 12-307 (S. Ct. Sept. 11, 2012), 2012 WL3991414, at I (asking Court to decide “[w]hether Section 3 of DOMA violates the FifthAmendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws as applied to persons of thesame sex who are legally married under the laws of their State.”);
United States v.
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 115 Filed 01/07/13 Page 3 of 13 Page ID#:2386