For proponents of the human rights issue, the matter would appear to be rather open and shut in terms of challenging constitutionality and this issue impacts decision-making at the social level, even if this practice is discouraged in the rule of law. This division seems to maintain the gay marriage and its constitutionality while this divisional approach exists.Consistent with the rule of law, however, the Department of Justice has long followed the practice of defending federal statutes as long as reasonable arguments can be made in support of their constitutionality, even if the Department disagrees with a particular statute as a policy matter, as it does here. (lawlib.state.ma.us, 2).In defense of those who uphold the constitution as a foundation on which to mold new social policy, leadership recognizes that policy on gay marriage stands and will remain defended providing there are no significant grounds on which to proclaim the act unconstitutional. Federal support for the program without claims of unconstitutionality put this issue much into state-level hands, with federal level support in the objective if the goal is to uphold this civil rights matter.The mid-tier court system that governs and shapes these policies is currently made up of very conservative judges and a blend of more liberal decision-makers (Chemerinsky, 3). Division at this level and lack of solid ground on which to claim opportunity for repealing federal policy halts the progress of ensuring adequate legal protection for gay marriage. Under this system, challenges to decisions made at the district level are put forward to the Supreme Court in the pursuit of discretionary review. In general, gay marriage will likely be decided at the highest levels of judicial scrutiny providing that a resolution (either for or against) is determined at the inferior levels of justice.States that allow gay marriage include California, though its momentum is continuously challenged.