One-Sided Argumentation in the Defense of Marriage Act

Abstract

The goal of this essay is to extend legal argumentation theory by identifying the traits of partisan and one-sided arguments found in legal appeals and reinforced by amicus curiae briefs supporting those appeals. Specifically, I describe the role of amicus curiae briefs commonly used in appellate argumentation in the United States. Then I identify six characteristics of these arguments: clarifying a legal principle, emphasizing amici interests, refuting oppositions’ arguments, stipulating partisan definitions, using one-sided evidence, and citing precedents that reinforce my-side bias. I conclude by providing examples of these six characteristics from two amicus briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court decision entitled, United States v. Windsor (570 U.S. slip opinion. American Bar Association. http://www.supremecourtpreview.org. Accessed 1 Sept 2013, 2013), that overturned a section of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that declared marriage in the U.S. is only between a man and a woman.