Although it is no secret that I’m a bit displeased with the timing of this DOMA challange in Mass., the suit itself raises some important constitutional issues. Slate chooses to call it “state sovereignty;” that DOMA is unconstitutional because it infringes on states’ rights, namely, the right to decide marriage and family law:
On Tuesday, a gay rights organization filed a lawsuit in Boston whose import and importance are likely to be misunderstood. Filed on behalf of eight married same-sex couples and three people who survived their same-sex spouses, the complaint in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management challenges a congressional statute that refuses to recognize same-sex marriages under federal law. Much of the media coverage will probably focus on the gay rights angle of the case. But Gill also raises the broader issue of how far the federal government can intrude on state sovereignty—in this case, how states define marriage. It is worth distinguishing between the two takes on the case, because the lens one chooses could easily determine the result.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:58 am
That’s a strange way to frame it, since the GLAD challenge explicitly evades Section 2 and only challenges Section 3.
I wonder what GLAD, or Slate, thinks about the de facto federal drinking age, or Gonzales v. Raich.
March 11th, 2009 at 11:54 am
I just watched a video on the petition fraud on DOMA in Massachusettes. It is scary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEsGni-QsOU
March 11th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Actually, this is not that bad of an idea. There are limits in which the federal government should infringe on the sovereign rights of states. In this case, DOMA should be challenged because it forces discrimination from a federal viewpoint, even though there are states that have established equality for all. Just today, I read that my home state, Washington, finally is allowing domestic partnerships with the same legal rights as married folk…just not calling it marriage. Will this be challenged? Probably. Conservatives are already calling for a state-wide vote much like California did with Prop H8.