Rulings on Two DOMA Cases

Judge Joseph Tauro, a federal judge in the Commonwealth of Massachussets, recently ruled on two cases regarding Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). In both instances, it was determined that this section of DOMA was unconstitutional by virtue of violations of not one, but two amendments to the Constitution.  In ruling that DOMA was contrary to the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, equal protection under the law, and the Tenth Amendment, the right of states to make their own laws about marriage, and to have those laws recognized by the federal government, Judge Tauro opened another door toward recognizing inclusive marriage rights for both hetero- and homoamorous couples in the United States.  An excellent article on the details of these cases was written by Lisa Keen in Bay Windows, a large, New England periodical that caters to the LGBT community, entitled, "Doma decision released."

Although the response to the Fifth Amendment was vitally important because it recognizes the inequality among citizens of the U.S., the ruling on the Tenth Amendment held the greatest movement forward.  By stating that state laws that were not otherwise contraindicated by federal law must be recognized by the federal government, homoamorous couples could be recognized by the federal government as married.  Recognizing all marriages as valid at the federal level will provide greater weight to the discussion supporting inclusive marriage.

The U.S. Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court are still ahead in the battle for marriage equality.  There is nothing wrong with due process.  One of the best ways to communicate change is to define one's terms.  Marriage is... Marriage is not...  These blanks must be filled in at the legislative, judiciary, and social levels to be effective. 

As California awaits the ruling on Proposition 8 in San Francisco, this timely message comes as yet another ray of hope for those who so deeply desire to marry the person they love.  It seems that slowly, the term "gay marriage" is being replaced by "marriage equality" and "inclusive marriage."  This is an important delineation because at the legal level, there should only be one "marriage." 

The cases before the courts right now relate only to civil marriages.  In 2010, every marriage in this country that is found in a state's Bureau of Vital Statistics is a civil marriage.  Although it may be performed by a minister and sanctified by a church, the marriage license itself is for a civil marriage, not a religious one.  Our nation is beginning to understand this concept.  Lawmakers, judges, and voters can no more legislate faith than religious leaders can determine law.  Communist countries legislate religious practice.  Theocracies allow religious tenets to directly affect law.  Although there is a morality to our laws, the United States is a republic that practices democracy.  U.S. citizens have the best seat in the house to see that difference at a national level right now, and it looks good.