The act — signed by former President Bill Clinton in 1996 — defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, essentially outlawing federally recognized same-sex marriages. The DOJ move is not binding, but a reversal of legal opinion.

For Pfost, chairman of the Alliance of Queer & Ally Students, the notice was a positive turn for an issue that has somewhat damaged President Barack Obama’s image with the gay community, mostly because of the time it took the president to make good on this particular campaign promise. Before Wednesday, the DOJ under Obama had argued for the act’s constitutionality.

“The administration kind of beat around the bush on (DOMA) a lot, for a lot of political reasons,” Pfost said. “I’m certainly happy to see that they’ve kind of worked on it.”

In all, the news could be considered the gay community’s second policy victory in a matter of months. The announcement came two months after Obama signed a repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy that barred gay service men and women from disclosing their sexuality.

In a statement, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said Section 3 of DOMA — the definition of marriage — is the aspect of the law being challenged by the DOJ. The statement says the ultimate call was Obama’s.

“Much of the legal landscape has changed in the 15 years since Congress passed DOMA,” Holder said in the letter, noting legal battles that have granted broader rights to gays as well as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” “But while both the wisdom and the legality of Section 3 of DOMA will continue to be the subject of both extensive litigation and public debate, this administration no longer will assert its constitutionality in court.”

Michael Craw, an assistant professor in James Madison College and an expert on gay and lesbian politics, said the reversal is rather unusual in that presidents typically defend laws enacted by Congress even though they might disagree with them.

In all, though, the move likely was the right one because it has become increasingly difficult to argue for laws such as DOMA in court, Craw said. He referenced a high-profile lawsuit in California wherein a judge ruled the state’s ban on gay marriage unconstitutional as such a case.

“There’s very little rationale behind DOMA, other than homophobia dressed up as public policy,” he said, adding the announcement likely was DOMA’s death blow. “I think the writing was on the wall for the end of DOMA.”

Some DOMA proponents, though, doubted the viability of Obama’s reversal. Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, said it came as no surprise the Obama administration took the stance it did.

The American Family Association was instrumental in passing Michigan’s own gay marriage and civil union ban, which was approved by voters in 2004.

“I don’t think it has that much impact, frankly, in what the federal courts or the United States Supreme Court may end up arguing,” Glenn said.
“I don’t think the fact the Obama administration argues one way or another has any impact.”