Massachusetts Becomes The First State To Challenge The U.S. Defense Of Marriage Act In Federal Court

The Los Angeles Times reports that Massachusetts "became the first to challenge the U.S. Defense of Marriage Act, contending that the 1996 law interferes with Massachusetts' right to define and regulate marriage. The law defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. It denies federal recognition of gay marriage and gives states the right to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Boston, says that the approximately 16,000 same-sex couples who have wed in Massachusetts since the state began performing gay marriages in 2004 are being unfairly denied federal benefits given to heterosexual couples. "They are entitled to equal treatment under the laws regardless of whether they are gay or straight," state Atty. Gen. Martha Coakley said at a news conference. Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine and Iowa" are the other states where gay marriage is legal. California's Supreme Court legalized it as well, but Proposition 8 reversed the Supreme Court decision.

Recently I read the motion to dismiss filed by the Department of Justice in response to a challenge against the Defense of Marrage Act ("DOMA") from a married gay couple in California. I have adopted many of the points they made in the commentary below so that you can understand why this Massachusetts case should be dismissed out of federal court.

These claims are ridiculous on their face and should be dismissed from court immediately. DOMA is a valid exercise of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Longstanding principles of conflicts of law do not require a State to apply another State's law in violation of its own legitimate public policy. Longstanding public policy doctrines are clear that out-of-state statutes or acts that are contrary to a different State's policy do not need to be followed under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Further, the courts have historically followed this principle in relation to the validity of marriages. The second sentence of the Full Faith and Credit Clause empowers Congress to prescribe "the Effect" the laws of one State should have on another. The power exercised by Congress in enacting DOMA clearly conforms to any conceivable construction of the effects provision of the Constitution.

DOMA does not impinge upon any fundamental right. It therefore cannot be entitled to heightened scrutiny, but rather any court must use a rational-basis review. Federal law failing to recognize a certain subset of marriages that are recognized by a certain subset of States cannot be taken as an infringement on any rights, even if same-sex marriage were accepted as a fundamental right under the Constitution. In any event, in Baker v. Nelson, the Supreme Court itself dismissed a claim that the Constitution provides a right to same-sex marriage for lack of a "substantial federal question." 409 U.S. 810 (1972).

The bottom line is that DOMA satisfies the highly deferential standard of rational-basis review. Congress has long extended certain federal benefits and protections on the basis of only one relationship, that being between a husband and wife (and their minor children). It did not give any benefits to any other in the broad spectrum of human relationships, which can also be founded in affection. Relationships between siblings, cousins, companions, partners, or otherwise are not afforded benefits or protections. DOMA does not mandate state policies regarding marriage, but rather remains nuetral on the federal level while protecting the rights of any state to individually legalize gay marriage and develop its own policy. Federal policies have long sought to promote the traditional uniformly-recognized form of marriage. DOMA recognizes the right of each State to expand the definition of marriage if it so chooses, but it also protects federal taxpayers in other States from being forced to subsidize a form of marriage their own States do not recognize. Recent recognitions of same-sex marriage cannot possibly compel Congress to extend to this relationship the same federal benefits it choses to afford to the centuries-old institution of heterosexual marriage. Equal protection principles do not forbid Congress from allowing divergent state policies regarding marriage to develop in the states under a rational-basis review, particularly on matters of evolving and contentious social policy.

Forcing Congress to recognize and change federal policy so that it comports with state policy on marraige goes up against all constitutional principles and is fundamentally at odds with our federalist scheme. A motion to dismiss must be filed immediately by the federal government and it should be granted by the federal court in Boston.
Tweet