The Phoenix Network:
 
 
About  |  Advertise
Adult  |  Moonsigns  |  Band Guide  |  Blogs  |  In Pictures
 
News Features  |  Talking Politics  |  This Just In
50states-1000x50_3

Gay-marriage win; progressive agenda loss?

Court Complications
By DEIRDRE FULTON  |  July 19, 2010

1008_domadudes_main

Gay-rights supporters won a huge victory on July 8, when a federal judge in Boston ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) — the federal law that defines marriage as between one man and one woman, thereby denying legally married same-sex couples important federal benefits — was unconstitutional because it violated two Amendments, the Fifth and the Tenth.

It was a multi-pronged takedown in response to a pair of separate but parallel DOMA challenges. One, brought by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, claimed that DOMA interferes with the state's sovereign ability to define marriage. The other, filed and argued by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders on behalf of seven couples and three individuals, argued that DOMA violates the US Constitution's equal-protection clause.

In his decision on the state case, Judge Joseph Tauro agreed DOMA infringed on Massachusetts's ability to define its own marriage laws. "The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state, and, in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment," Tauro wrote.

In the GLAD case, Gill v. the Office of Personnel Management, Tauro concurred with the plaintiffs that the federal government did not provide valid reasons for preserving DOMA — or for enacting it in the first place.

Currently, Tauro's rulings affect only same-sex married couples in Massachusetts. If the federal government appeals (which it is very likely to do), the case will go to the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit — an outcome there would also affect Maine, New Hampshire (which also allows gay marriage), Rhode Island (which may soon consider the question), and Puerto Rico. After that: the Supreme Court.

There are other potential implications of these DOMA decisions. There's the question of how a renunciation of DOMA affects the larger issue of same-sex marriage — if it's unconstitutional to treat heterosexual and homosexual marriages differently, mustn't it be similarly prejudiced to bar same-sex couples from marrying in the first place?

Most interesting is the quandary that Tauro's decision on the Coakley case presents for conservatives, many of whom consider themselves "constitutionalists" who believe that states' rights should trump federal regulation. Here, a social and political issue oft-opposed by the right wing — gay marriage — is dealt a victory using the same means that Tea Partiers cite when arguing against health-care reform, or around immigration issues: states' rights.

"Conservatives are the ones now faced with a dilemma," attorney and Phoenix contributor Harvey Silverglate says. "In order to reverse Judge Tauro, they have to convince the appellate courts that they were not really all that serious, all along, in arguing for states' rights and for the viability of the Tenth Amendment."

Yet progressives shouldn't gloat too long.

Yale Law School professor Jack Balkin noted on his Balkanization blog last week, "Judge Tauro has offered a road map to attack a wide range of federal welfare programs, including health-care reform. No matter how much they might like the result in this particular case, this is not a road that liberals want to travel."

Too late — there's no turning back now.

Related: Corporate love, A black leadership silent on abortion fabrications, The Cultural Caucus's big gamble, More more >
  Topics: News Features , Politics, Gay marriage, DOMA,  More more >
| More
Add Comment
HTML Prohibited

 Friends' Activity   Popular   Most Viewed 
Today's Event Picks
ARTICLES BY DEIRDRE FULTON
Share this entry with Delicious
  •   GAY-MARRIAGE WIN; PROGRESSIVE AGENDA LOSS?  |  July 19, 2010
    Gay-rights supporters won a huge victory on July 8, when a federal judge in Boston ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) — the federal law that defines marriage as between one man and one woman, thereby denying legally married same-sex couples important federal benefits — was unconstitutional because it violated two Amendments, the Fifth and the Tenth.
  •   RAMPING UP SAFE-DRINKING STRATEGIES  |  July 07, 2010
    It'll come as no surprise to anyone who was out and about during the long, hot, holiday weekend that Portland's drinking and nightlife scenes get a little bit more . . . intense during the summer months.
  •   GET A GREEN NIGHT’S SLEEP  |  July 07, 2010
    This month, I'm making a big purchase.
  •   EXPANDING EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION OPTIONS  |  July 01, 2010
    A new "morning-after pill" is on the verge of being approved for prescription use in the United States; this one could be safely and effectively taken for five mornings after unprotected sex.
  •   BEYOND THE STATE: WHAT'S REOPENING WHERE  |  June 24, 2010
    As we enter Portland's busy season, there are several comings-and-goings (we'll focus on the comings and less on the goings) to keep track of as we plan our summer outings and evenings on the town.

 See all articles by: DEIRDRE FULTON

MOST POPULAR
RSS Feed of for the most popular articles
 Most Viewed   Most Emailed 



  |  Sign In  |  Register
 
thePhoenix.com:
Phoenix Media/Communications Group:
TODAY'S FEATURED ADVERTISERS
Copyright © 2010 The Phoenix Media/Communications Group