Marriage Still Under Fire in the Courts

I talked today with Chuck Donovan of the Heritage Foundation about a recent federal court decision which struck down the Defense of Marriage Act. This is another in a series of court cases over the last fifteen years which have radically defined our political debate in this country.

Recently, a federal judge in—of all places—Massachusetts struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) on the grounds that it superseded a state’s right to determine the makeup of its marriage laws.

The Defense of Marriage Act was passed in 1996 as an answer to problems brought about through a Massachusetts Supreme Court decision making homosexual marriage legal in that state. The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the constitution requires states to honor the “public act and records” of every other state. The argument goes therefore that marriage licenses as a public record must be honored elsewhere as well.  Here’s the language of Article IV, Sec. 1 of the Constitution:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

There is an argument that “the Effect thereof” allows the federal government to determine through legislation like the Defense of Marriage Act how such public records can be applied. The judge in the Massachusetts case in his opinion argued against DOMA on Tenth Amendment grounds.

You can find out more information about the legal issues surrounding the Defense of Marriage Act and marriage laws throughout the United States at the Alliance Defense Fund’s website, DOMA Watch.

This article originally appeared at www.opinontimes.com and is automatically syndicated here with permission.

A publication written by "We the People," The Constitutionalist Today is comprised of articles from a range of writers, journalists, and bloggers. As such, the opinions herein may not reflect the opinions of our staff, management, or editorial board.