1. Political dynasty

What is a political dynasty? A common meaning is the repeated election and reelection of close relatives with the same surname to offices in the local and national governments. The relatives appear to enjoy a monopoly of political power to the disadvantage of rival leaders. In this sense we can cite many provinces and cities with political dynasties.Political dynasty members are seen to use their superior wealth, following and access to public resources to favor themselves. They attract their followers and keep them loyal with patronage.Some of them even resort to unfair if not illegal means to keep their political rivals out of office: corruption, fraud, violence, vote-buying and intimidation. But other political dynasties do not. So we have “bad political dynasties” and “benevolent political dynasties.”Over a centuryFor example, in one province, La Union, the Ortega clan has survived for over a century, or since the beginning of elections under American colonial rule. So there is some reference to an Ortega “political dynasty.”However, apparently, many people in La Union do not trace the exceptional political supremacy of the Ortega clan to the negative factors we have mentioned. In this sense we can speak of a benevolent and respected Ortega “political dynasty.”In general, however, political dynasties rise and fall. A political dynasty can be challenged and defeated, then rise again; or fade away when the people are dissatisfied and turn to other leaders.For a long time, the Osmeñas and the Cuencos dominated politics in Cebu. Now, the Garcias, Duranos and other families are dominant. In other places politics is keenly competitive and unpredictable, and there is a turnover of ruling families.Dynasties in SenateThe issue of political dynasties has heated up in relation to the 2013 candidates for the Senate who come from one and the same family or clan and thus bear the same surname as another senator, or President Aquino himself.In this sense, loud public criticism and some cynicism greeted the announcement of senatorial candidates for the 2013 elections. One set belongs to the majority coalition: Bam Aquino, the President’s cousin; Sen. Alan Peter, brother of Sen. Pia Cayetano, succeeding himself; Rep. Juan Edgardo Angara Jr. succeeding his father, Sen. Edgardo Angara, who is reaching his term limit and running to succeed his sister as governor of Aurora province; former Las Piñas Rep. Cynthia Villar, wife of outgoing Sen. Manuel Villar; former senator Ramon “Jun” Magsaysay, only son of the late and beloved President Ramon Magsaysay (1953-57); and Sen. Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III, son of former Sen. Aquilino Pimentel Jr.Under the banner of the United Nationalist Alliance, led by Vice President Jejomar Binay, the senatorial candidates include his eldest daughter, Nancy; Rep. Juan Ponce Enrile Jr. who would be joining his father, the Senate President; Rep. J.V. Ejercito who would join his brother, Sen. Jinggoy Estrada. Prohibited but not definedCertainly, the framers of our 1987 Constitution recognized the importance of maintaining a level playing field in political competition as expressed in the following provision: “The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.” (Art. II. Sec. 26)Unfortunately, the framers left it entirely to Congress, many of whose members belong to political dynasties, to define political dynasties and prohibit them. The Commission on Elections (Comelec) can say that it has no clear basis to enforce the constitutional prohibition since the Constitution does not define political dynasties and Congress has not passed the implementing legislation on the subject.If the framers had been more serious and discerning, they could have prohibited political dynasties effectively by a forthright constitutional prohibition such as this: “No outgoing elected official shall be succeeded to the same office by any person related to him/her to the third degree of consanguinity or affinity.”This would prohibit the spouse, brother or sister, or in-laws, children, or first cousins of the outgoing elected official to succeed him/her in the same office.Lack of implementing legislation would not prevent the enforcement of the specific constitutional prohibition. Indeed, the prohibition would make it mandatory for Congress to pass the implementing law. Or the courts would make the decision in a litigation and direct its implementation. The Comelec would be obligated to enforce the court’s decision.Test case in SCBusinessman Luis Biraogo has asked the Supreme Court to enforce the constitutional ban on political dynasties in the 2013 elections. He alleges that the current batch of candidates is “the best testament to that political and constitutional mockery.” He cites not only the political dynasties in the Senate but also the Belmontes, Pacquiaos and Jalosjoses.Biraogo asserts that the Comelec is vested with implied powers to make a definition of political dynasties and the “ministerial duty” to prohibit them. He argues that political dynasties are prohibited by the Constitution because they are inherently bad; it does not matter whether they are reform-oriented, or known for public service like Bam Aquino and the Vice President. 

Symptom of problemsThe rapid expansion of our electorate, consisting of more and more poor people, insecure and dependent voters, and increasing political competition have increased the cost of campaigning and incumbency for the political leaders acting as patrons of their constituents.Our continuing semifeudal society and premodern political culture shape our dysfunctional elections, political parties, presidential form of government and unitary system of national-local government relations.The cost of elections is rising in all democracies, except that in the industrialized democracies where many middle class citizens contribute to the campaign of their party candidates. Moreover, the state supports the political parties through subsidies.In contrast, our middle class is not as broad and deep and effective as a countervailing force to the political establishment, although middle class members are becoming more assertive and our media are vigilant.Again, many of our voters are poor dependents of their political patrons. These conditions put great pressure on our politicians to use their power and influence to raise funds for their political survival often through rent-seeking or private use of power, pork barrel politics and influence peddling.Accountable politicsPolitical dynasties are thus the cause and consequence of our ineffective and unaccountable patron-client democracy, and personalized parties plagued by misuse of power, corruption and wastage of state resources, and of our rapid population growth and continuing underdevelopment.We cannot begin to change our political system that breeds these ills without basic structural and institutional reforms, as we critics and Charter change advocates keep saying and writing about.We need to organize nationwide and democratic political parties based on a defined ideology, and program of governance and reform, with regular dues paying members who continually engage the voters in discussing local and national issues and problems affecting them, and who choose their own leaders and candidates for public office.In this way, the members own the political party and are not beholden to wealthy patrons. In time, this kind of political parties will help build an alternative to our traditional political parties which are loose and opportunistic alliances of politicians and political dynasties.Without these various reforms, we cannot develop our economy to make it more productive, competitive, equitable and inclusive in its growth and benefits. We cannot control the excessive growth of our population and upgrade our environment.Challenge to P-NoyWe do need a transforming President to unite our legislators,  local government leaders, civil society and media to begin to change the political system, and gradually our political dynasties. This is the true challenge to leaders who say they are committed to change. This is the real direction of “daang matuwid (straight path).”To be sustainable, fighting corruption and developing the country cannot depend on our President’s charisma alone, however well-meaning and popular and trusted he is. These require dynamic, functional institutions and a critical mass of transforming leaders gradually replacing our political dynasties.We need inclusive economic growth, population control and a sustainable environment. In a word, we need good democratic governance that will enable us in the long run to “build a just and humane society.” 

Same sex marriage

INTRODUCTION

The movement to open civil marriage to same-sex couples achieved its first temporary success in 1993 with the decision of the Hawaii Supreme Court that the restriction of marriage to opposite-sex couples would be presumed unconstitutional unless the state could demonstrate that it furthered a compelling state interest. In response to this decision the state constitution was amended to allow the legislature to preserve that restriction. A similar court decision in Alaska in 1998 led to an even stronger constitutional amendment, itself defining marriage as between one man and one woman. In further reaction to the Hawaii case, the federal Defense of Marriage Act (1996) provided that no state would be required to recognize a same-sex marriage

from another state, and also defined marriage for federal-law purposes as opposite-sex. The majority of the states also passed their own "marriage protection acts." (In November 2004, eleven more U.S. states amended their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage.)

In Vermont, after that state's Supreme Court held in 1999 that the state must extend to same- sex couples the same benefits that married couples receive, the legislature in 2000 created the status of "civil union" to fulfill that mandate. Connecticut adopted a similar civil union law in 2005.

In 2001, the Netherlands became the first country to open civil marriage to same-sex couples. Belgium became the second in 2003. In 2002 through 2004, courts in six Canadian provinces held that the opposite-sex definition of marriage was contrary to Canada's Charter of Rights, and in 2005 federal legislation extended same-sex marriage to all of Canada. Same-sex marriage was also legalized in Spain in 2005 , in South Africa in 2006, in Norway and Sweden effective in 2009, and in Portugal, Iceland, and Argentina effective in 2010.

In November 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that excluding same-sex couples from the benefits of civil marriage violated the state constitution, and in February 2004 that court further held that a "civil union" law would not be sufficient, and on May 17, 2004 Massachusetts became the first state in the United States where same-sex marriage per se is legal.

In July 2006, opposite-sex definitions of marriage were upheld by the highest courts of both New York and Washington; likewise in Maryland in 2007.

In October 2006, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that same-sex couples were entitled to the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statutes. The Legislature complied with that decision by enacting a civil union act in December 2006.

In May 2008, California became the second state to legalize same-sex marriage when the California Supreme Court held that laws restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples were unconstitutional. Connecticut followed suit in October 2008. In California, the Supreme Court decision was overturned by voter initiative in the November 2008 election, but that initiative was held unconstitutional by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in February 2012.

In 2009, same-sex marriage was legalized in Iowa by decision of its Supreme Court, and in Vermont, New Hampshire, and the District of Columbia by legislation. New

York's Marriage Equality Act was enacted in June 2011. The states of Maryland and Washington legalized same-sex marriage by statute in 2012.

Wikipedia

Same-sex marriage, also known as gay marriage or equal marriage, is marriage between two persons

of the same biological sex or gender identity. Legal recognition of same-sex marriage is sometimes

referred to as marriage equality, particularly by supporters.[1][2][3][4][5][6]

Since 2001, eleven countries

(Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway,Portugal, Spain, South

Africa, Sweden) and several sub-national jurisdictions (parts of Brazil,Mexico and the United States) allow

same-sex couples to marry. Bills legalizing same-sex marriage have been proposed, are pending, or have

passed at least one legislative house

in Andorra,Colombia, Finland, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Nepal, New Zealand, Taiwan, the United

Kingdom, and Uruguay as well as in the legislatures of several sub-national jurisdictions (in Scotlandas

well as parts of Australia, Mexico, and the United States).

Introduction of same-sex marriage has varied by jurisdiction, being variously accomplished through a

legislative change to marriage laws, a court ruling based on constitutional guarantees of equality, or by

direct popular vote (via a ballot initiative or a referendum). The recognition of same-sex marriage is a

political, social, civil-rights and religious issue in many nations, and debates continue to arise over

whether same-sex couples should be allowed marriage, be required to hold a different status (a civil

union), or be denied recognition of such rights. Allowing same-gender couples to legally marry is

considered to be one of the most important of all LGBT rights.

Same-sex marriages can be performed in a secular civil ceremony or in a religious setting. Various

religious groups around the world conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies; for

example: Quakers,Episcopalians, the Metropolitan Community Church, the United Church of Christ,

the United Church of Canada, Reform and Conservative Jews, Wiccans, Druids, Unitarian

Universalists and Native American religions with a two-spirit tradition.

Studies conducted in several countries indicate that support for the legalization of same-sex marriage

increases with higher levels of education and that support is strong among younger people. Additionally,

polls show that there is rising support for same-sex marriage globally across all races, ethnicities, ages,

religions, political affiliations, socioeconomic statuses, etc.[

HISTORY

ANCIENT

An example of egalitarian male domestic partnership from the early Zhou Dynasty period of China is

recorded in the story of Pan Zhang & Wang Zhongxian. While the relationship was clearly approved by

the wider community, and was compared to heterosexual marriage, it did not involve a religious ceremony

binding the couple.[73]

The first historical mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the earlyRoman

Empire.[74] These were usually reported in a critical or satirical manner.[75]

The first Roman emperor to have married a man was Nero, who is reported to have married two other

men on different occasions. First with one of his freedman, Pythagoras, to whom Nero took the role of the

bride, and later as a groom Nero married a young boy, who resembled one of his concubines,[76] named Sporus in a very public ceremony with all the solemnities of matrimony, and lived with him as

his spouse. A friend gave the "bride" away "as required by law." The marriage was celebrated separately

in both Greece and Rome in extravagant public ceremonies.[77]

Emperor Elagabalus referred to his chariot driver, a blond slave from Caria named Hierocles, as his

husband.[78] He also married an athlete named Zoticus in a lavish public ceremony in Rome amidst the

rejoicings of the citizens.[79][80]

It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis

Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a marriage

between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart,

presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases).[81] Furthermore,

"matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes

a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."[82] Still, the lack of

legal validity notwithstanding, there is a consensus among modern historians that same-sex relationships

existed in ancient Rome, but the exact frequency and nature of "same-sex unions" during that period is

obscure.[83] In 342 AD Christian emperorsConstantius II and Constans issued a law in the Theodosian

Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) prohibiting same-sex marriage in Rome and ordering execution for those so married.[84]

A same-sex marriage between the two men Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz in the Galician municipality

of Rairiz de Veiga in Spain occurred on 16 April 1061. They were married by a priest at a small chapel.

The historic documents about the church wedding were found at Monastery of San Salvador de

Celanova.[85]

Modern

In 2001, the Netherlands became the first nation in the world to grant same-sex marriages.[86] Same-sex

marriages are also granted and mutually recognized by Belgium (2003),[87] Spain (2005), Canada (2005), South Africa (2006), Norway (2009), Sweden (2009),Portugal (2010),[88] Iceland (2010), Argentina (2010) and Denmark (2012). In Mexico, same-sex marriage is recognized in

all 31 states but only performed in Mexico City and in Quintana Roo State. In Nepal, their recognition has

been judicially mandated but not yet legislated.[89] Nine states in the United States, as well as the District

of Columbia permit same sex marriage, beginning with Massachusetts in 2004 and Connecticut in 2008.[90] As of 2010, some 250 million people (4% of the world population) lived in areas that recognize and

perform same-sex marriages.[91]

Current status

Main articles: Status of same-sex marriage and Same-sex marriage legislation around the world

Legal recognition

Same-sex marriage is legally recognized nationwide in Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland,

the Netherlands, Norway,Portugal, South Africa, Spain, and Sweden. In the United States, same-sex

marriages are not recognized federally, though same-sex couples can marry in nine of the fifty states and

one district. In Mexico, same-sex marriages are only performed in Mexico City andQuintana Roo, but

these marriages are recognized by all Mexican states and by the Mexican federal government.[92] Israel does not recognize same-sex marriages performed on its territory, but recognizes same-sex

marriages performed in foreign jurisdictions. Same-sex couples had their civil unions converted into

marriage in several Brazil states with the approval of a state judge. If approved, that marriage is

recognized in all the national territory

Argentina

Main article: Same-sex marriage in Argentina

On 15 July 2010, the Argentine Senate approved a bill extending marriage rights to same-sex couples. It

was supported by the Government of President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and opposed by the

Catholic Church.[94] Polls showed that nearly 70% of Argentines supported giving gay people the same

marital rights as heterosexuals.[95]

Belgium

Main article: Same-sex marriage in Belgium

Belgium became the second country in the world to legally recognize same-sex marriages on 1 June

2003, with the coming into force of a bill passed by the Belgian Federal Parliament. Originally, Belgium

allowed the marriages of foreign same-sex couples only if their country of origin also allowed these

unions, however legislation enacted in October 2004 permits any couple to marry if at least one of the

spouses has lived in the country for a minimum of three months. A 2006 law enabled legal adoption by

same-sex spouses.

Brazil

Main article: Same-sex marriage in Brazil

Brazil's Supreme Court ruled in May 2011 that same-sex couples are legally entitled to civil unions,

stopping short of same-sex marriage.[96] Same-sex couples had their civil unions converted into marriage

in several Brazil states with the approval of a state judge. If approved, that marriage is recognized in all

the national territory.[93] In November 2012, the Court of Bahia legalized same-sex marriage in the state

of Bahia.[97][98] In December 2012, the state of São Paulo legalized same-sex marriage.[99]

Canada

Legal recognition of same-sex marriage in Canada followed a series of constitutional challenges based on

the equality provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In the first such case,Halpern v.

Canada (Attorney General), same-sex marriage ceremonies performed in Ontario on 14 January 2001

were subsequently validated when the common law, opposite-sex definition of marriage was held to be

unconstitutional. Similar rulings had legalized same-sex marriage in eight provinces and one territory

when the 2005 Civil Marriage Act defined marriage throughout Canada as "the lawful union of two

persons to the exclusion of all others."

Denmark

Main article: Same-sex marriage in Denmark

On 7 June 2012, the Folketing (Danish parliament) approved new laws regarding same-sex civil and

religious marriage. These laws permit same-sex couples to get married in the Church of Denmark. The

bills received Royal Assent on 12 June and took effect on 15 June 2012.[100] Denmark was previously the

first country in the world to legally recognize same-sex couples through registered partnerships in

1989. [101][102]

Iceland

Main article: Same-sex marriage in Iceland

Same-sex marriage was introduced in Iceland through legislation establishing a gender-neutral definition

of marriage introduced by the coalition government of the Social Democratic Alliance and Left-Green

Movement. The legislation was passed unanimously by the Icelandic Althing on 11 June 2010, and took

effect on 27 June 2010, replacing an earlier system of registered partnerships for same-sex couples.[103]

[104] Prime Minister Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir and her partner were among first married same-sex couples in

the country.[105]

Israel

Main article: Same-sex marriage in Israel

Israel's High Court of Justice ruled to honor same-sex marriages granted in other countries even though

Israel does not recognize such marriages performed under its own jurisdiction. A bill was raised in

the Knesset (parliament) to rescind the High Court's ruling, but the Knesset has not advanced the bill

since December 2006. A bill to legalize same-sex and interfaith civil marriages was defeated in the

Knesset 39-11, on 16 May 2012.[106]

Mexico

Main articles: Same-sex marriage in Mexico City and Same-sex marriage in Quintana Roo

On 21 December 2009, the Federal District's Legislative Assembly legalized same-sex marriages

and adoption by same-sex couples. The law was enacted eight days later and became effective in early

March 2010.[107] On 10 August 2010, the Mexican Supreme Courtruled that while not every state must

grant same-sex marriages, they must all recognize those performed where they are legal.[108]

On 28 November 2011, the first two same-sex marriages occurred in Quintana Roo after it was

discovered that Quintana Roo's Civil Code did not explicitly prohibit same-sex marriage,[109] but these

marriages were later annulled by the governor of Quintana Roo in April 2012.[110] In May 2012, the

Secretary of State of Quintana Roo reversed the annulments and allowed for future same-sex marriages

to be performed in the state.[111]

Netherlands

Main article: Same-sex marriage in the Netherlands

The Netherlands was the first country to extend marriage laws to include same-sex couples, following the

recommendation of a special commission appointed to investigate the issue in 1995. A same-sex

marriage bill passed the House of Representatives and the Senatein 2000, taking effect on 1 April 2001.[112]

In the Netherlands' Caribbean special municipalities of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba, marriage is

presently restricted to heterosexual couples;[113] however, a law enabling same-sex couples to marry has

been passed and is planned to come into effect by 10 October 2012.[114] The Caribbean countries Aruba,

Curaçao and Sint Maarten, forming the remainder of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, do not perform

same-sex marriages, but must recognize those performed in the Netherlands proper.

Norway

Main article: Same-sex marriage in Norway

Same-sex marriage became legal in Norway on 1 January 2009 when a gender neutral marriage bill was

enacted after being passed by the Norwegian legislature in June 2008.[115][116] Norway became the

first Scandinavian country and the sixth country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage.

Gender neutral marriage replaced Norway's previous system of registered partnerships for same-sex

couples. Couples in registered partnerships are able to retain that status or convert their registered

partnership to a marriage. No new registered partnerships may be created.

Portugal

Main article: Same-sex marriage in Portugal

On 8 January 2010, the parliament approved, with 126 votes in favor, 97 against and 7 abstentions,

same-sex marriage. The President promulgated the law on 8 April, same-sex marriage become legal

since 5 June 2010, thus Portugal became the eighth country to conduct nationwide same-sex marriage.

South Africa

Legal recognition of same-sex marriages in South Africa came about as a result of theConstitutional

Court's decision in the case of Minister of Home Affairs v Fourie. The court ruled on 1 December 2005

that the existing marriage laws violated the equality clause of theBill of Rights because they discriminated

on the basis of sexual orientation. The court gaveParliament one year to rectify the inequality. The Civil

Union Act was passed by the National Assembly on 14 November 2006, by a vote of 230 to 41, and it

came into force on 30 November 2006. South Africa is the fifth country, the first in Africa, and the second

outside Europe, to legalize same-sex marriage.

Spain

Main article: Same-sex marriage in Spain

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Spain since 3 July 2005. In 2004, the nation's newly

elected Socialist government, led by President José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, began a campaign for its

legalization, including the right of adoption by same-sex couples.[117] After much debate, a law permitting

same-sex marriage was passed by the Cortes Generales(Spain's bicameral parliament, composed of

the Senate and the Congress of Deputies) on 30 June 2005 and published on 2 July 2005. Same-sex

marriage became legal in Spain on Sunday, 3 July 2005,[118] making it the third country in the world to do

so, after the Netherlands and Belgium.

Sweden

Main article: Same-sex marriage in Sweden

Same-sex marriage in Sweden has been legal since 1 May 2009, following the adoption of a new,

gender-neutral law on marriage by theSwedish parliament on 1 April 2009, making Sweden the seventh

country in the world to open marriage to same sex couples nationwide. Marriage replaced Sweden's

registered partnerships for same-sex couples. Existing registered partnerships between same-sex

couples remained in force with an option to convert them into marriages.

US

Although same-sex marriages are not recognized federally in the United States, same-sex couples can

legally marry in nine states (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New

York,Vermont, Maine, Maryland, Washington) and the District of Columbiaand receive state-level

benefits.[121][122] The states of New Jersey and Rhode Island do not grant same-sex marriages, but

recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, as does California in some cases,

particularly those established when the state briefly allowed same-sex marriage in 2008. Also, several

states offer civil unions or domestic partnerships, granting all or part of the state-level rights and

responsibilities of marriage.[123] Thirty-one states have constitutional restrictions limiting marriage to one

man and one woman.[124]

The U.S. Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996, defining marriage for the first

time solely as a union between a man and a woman for all federal purposes, and allowing states to refuse

to recognize such marriages created in other states.[125] Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning  (2005),

holding that prohibiting recognition of same-sex relationships violated the Constitution, was overturned on

appeal by the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2006, which ruled that "laws limiting the state-

recognized institution of marriage to heterosexual couples ... do not violate the Constitution of the United

States." The Washington Supreme Court, also in 2006, concluded that encouraging procreation within the

framework of marriage can be seen as a legitimate government interest furthered by limiting marriage to

between opposite-sex couples.[126]

In 2010, the U.S. District Court for Northern California ruled in Perry v. Schwarzenegger that evidence did

not show any historical purpose for excluding same-sex couples from marriage, as states have never

required spouses to have an ability or willingness to procreate in order to marry.[127]Since then,

eight federal courts have found that DOMA violates the U.S. Constitution in issues including bankruptcy,

public employee benefits, estate taxes, and immigration.[128][129][130] Striking down Section 3 of DOMA

inWindsor v. United States (2012), the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals became the first court[131] to hold

sexual orientation to be a quasi-suspect classification, and determined that laws that classify people on

such basis should be subject to intermediate scrutiny.[132] Currently, four other cases, including Windsor,

are awaiting a response for review in the U.S. Supreme Court.[133]

President Barack Obama announced on 9 May 2012 that he supports same-sex marriage.[134][135] Obama

also supports the full repeal of DOMA,[136] and called the state constitutional bans on same-sex marriage

in California(2008)[137] and North Carolina (2012) unnecessary.[138] In 2011, the Obama

Administration concluded that DOMA was unconstitutional and directed theU.S. Justice

Department (DOJ) to stop defending the law in court.[139] Subsequently, Eric Cantor, Republican majority

leader in theU.S. House of Representatives, announced that the House would defend DOMA. The law

firm hired to represent the House soon withdrew from defending the law, requiring the House to retain

replacement counsel.[140] In the past two decades, public support for same-sex marriage has steadily

increased,[56] and polls indicate that more than half of Americans support same-sex marriage.[56][67]

[68]Voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington approved same-sex marriage by referendum on 6

November 2012.[72]

In December 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it will rule on the federal lawsuit that seeks to

overturn California's ban on same-sex marriage. This is because in August 2010, Proposition 8 was found

unconstitutional by U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker. That ruling was appealed and later upheld by a

federal appeals court in February 2012. Proposition 8 proponents then appealed to the U.S. Supreme

Court. As of now, same-sex couples in California are still not allowed to legally marry until the Proposition

8 federal lawsuit is resolved.