MOSCOW, March 28 - RAPSI. For the second day in a row Wednesday, the US Supreme Court grappled with the issue of gay marriage - this time in light of the definition under federal law of marriage as being between a man and a woman.

For purposes of the receipt of federal benefits, the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) couched the definitions of marriage and spouse in heterosexual terms.

The relevant text of the Act stipulates: “the word ‘marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”

The case centered on a lesbian couple named Edie Windsor and Thea Spyer. The two met in 1963 and soon became romantically involved. They registered in 1993 as domestic partners and then married in Canada in 2007.

Spyer passed away in 2009, willing her entire estate to Windsor. Because DOMA stipulates that marital benefits should extend only to heterosexual couples, Windsor was required to pay $363,053 in federal tax on Spyer’s estate.

A federal court in New York declared DOMA unconstitutional as applied to Windsor. The decision was affirmed on appeal.

The issue posed before the court was whether DOMA’s definitions of marriage and spouse violate the US Constitution’s Fifth Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law, as applied to same-sex couples validly married under the laws of their state.

However, something of a federal power struggle has influenced the case as well.

In late February, the US Department of Justice – an organ of the executive branch – announced that it would no longer defend the relevant section of DOMA in cases involving same-sex married couples. The statement issued to this effect by US Attorney General Eric Holder made clear that President Obama had played an instrumental role in the decision: “After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination. Consequently, the Department will not defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA as applied to same-sex married couples in the two cases filed in the Second Circuit.”

In response, Republican Congressman John Boehner of the US House of Representatives – an organ of the legislative branch – announced the formation of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), a committee dedicated to the legal defense of the relevant section of DOMA. In his statement, Boehner chided the Obama administration for disrupting the balance of powers by taking it upon himself to declare the law unconstitutional: “The constitutionality of this law should be determined by the courts - not by the president unilaterally - and this action by the House will ensure the matter is addressed in a manner consistent with our Constitution.”

Thus on one hand, the executive branch has thrown in the towel on this section of DOMA, and has let this fact be known to the courts and the public at large.

On the other hand, representatives of the legislative branch have let it be known to the courts and the public at large that they don’t intend to let DOMA go without a fight.

As such, in accepting the case, the Supreme Court asked the parties to consider as well “whether the Executive Branch’s agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional deprives this Court of jurisdiction to decide this case; and whether the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives has Article III standing in this case.”

All of these questions combined made for a colorful discussion on Wednesday.

At one point Chief Justice Roberts took a jab at the Obama administration, stating: “if [Obama] has made a determination that executing the law by enforcing the terms is unconstitutional, I don't see why he doesn't have the courge of his convictions and execute not only the statute, but do it consistent with his view of the Constitution, rather than saying, oh, we'll wait till the Supreme Court tells us we have no choice.”

Justice Scalia wondered what has become of the DOJ in light of Holder’s announcement that it would no longer defend DOMA in court, noting that as far as he understood, in the past the Attorney General was bound to defend the laws of the US except in two cases: “Number one, where the basis for the alleged unconstitutionality has to do with presidential powers. When the presidential powers are involved, he's the lawyer for the President. So he can say, we think the statute's unconstitutional, I won't defend it.The second situation is where no possible rational argument could be made in defense of it. Now, neither of those situations exists here. And I'm wondering if we're living in this new world where the Attorney General can simply decide, yeah, it's unconstitutional, but it's not so unconstitutional that I'm not willing to enforce it, if we're in this new world, I - I don't want these cases like this to come before this Court all the time. And I think they will come all the time if that's - if that's - if that's the new regime in the Justice Department that we're dealing with.”

The conversation remained colorful throughout the discussion of the issue at the center of the case.

Robert A. Kaplan, representing Edie Windsor, affirmed that in his view the US has experienced a “sea change” with regard to “the understanding of gay people and their relationships” since DOMA’s passage in 1996.

To this, Chief Justice Roberts asserted, “I suppose the sea change has a lot to do with the political force and effectiveness of people representing, supporting your side of the case?”

When Kaplan argued that in his view, the “sea change” had more to do with something of an evolving social conscience than political play, Chief Justice Roberts retorted, “Really?... As far as I can tell, political figures are falling over themselves to endorse your side of the case.”

Speaking on behalf of BLAG, Attorney Paul Clement noted that at present states have the option to choose whether same-sex couples should be able to marry: “And what Congress says is, wait a minute. Let's take a timeout here. This is a redefinition of an age-old institution. Let's take a more cautious approach where every sovereign gets to do this for themselves.”

To this, Justice Sotomayor charged, “But what gives the Federal Government the right to be concerned at all at what the definition of marriage is?” Shortly thereafter she added, “So they can create a class they don't like -- here, homosexuals -- or a class that they consider is suspect in the marriage category, and they can create that class and decide benefits on that basis when they themselves have no interest in the actual institution of marriage as married.”

When Clement asserted that the federal government was justified in adopting a constitutionally permissible definition for purposes of federal law, Justice Ginsburg responded with a jibe touching on perhaps the most practical issue posed by the Windsor case: “Mr. Clement, the problem is, if we are totally for the states’ decision that there is a marriage between two people, for the federal government then to come in to say no joint return, no marital deduction, no Social Security benefits, your spouse is very sick, but you can’t get leave — one might well ask, ‘What kind of marriage is this?’ ”

The justices will now consider all that they learned during Wednesday’s oral arguments. A decision is expected in several months.