In March of 2009, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) filed a lawsuit in Boston’s Federal District Court on behalf of eight married couples and three surviving spouses from Massachusetts all denied federal legal protections available to spouses. GLAD’s argument is this: DOMA violates the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits Congress from intruding on areas of exclusive state authority. States decide marital laws, not the federal government. DOMA requires the federal government to override a state’s decision about who is married by designating which marriages are valid (something that falls out of its jurisdiction). Furthermore, GLAD says that DOMA violates the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment by denying “life, liberty, and property” to American citizens by refusing federally promised legal protections to its gay citizens
But GLAD’s case is most likely dead in the water for a few reasons.
One, its plaintiffs must prove they have standing to argue for state’s rights. Second, ever since the Civil War, federal laws have always trumped state laws. Even though states determine their own marriage laws, the federal government gets to decide whom to pay out in its programs. The case could easily get thrown out by a federal court on either of these grounds.
Rather, it’s more likely that DOMA will find a real challenge in Massachusettes v. DOMA because it stands on a much stronger leg. The entire state’s coming forward and saying that DOMA hurts everyone within it, not just 19 gay citizens. Furthermore, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley not only mimics GLAD’s claims, but adds that DOMA makes the state act against its own citizens (or else face a loss of federal funding) and that the law illegally targets gay people without furthering any state aim.
As a result, Massachusetts v. DOMA is the best legal challenge against the federal law thus far. It also relies heavily on the precedent Stevens laid out in Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas; leaving behind a legacy that could benefit future generations of LGBT Americans long after he leaves the court.
Thanks to Aaron Goodman, Patrick Hoffman, and Vance Roper for their additional research and discussion.
Don't forget to share:
Thirsty for more?
Subscribe to our newsletter to indulge in daily entertainment news, cultural trends, and visual delights.
Comments are closed.
doubter
Good article over all. One thing that the author leaves out though is that regardless of whether or not DOMA is unconstitutional under a 10th (or even a 5th) amendment claim, it’s still the only thing holding the legislative branch from taking up a call to pass a constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage. Currently DOMA is the dyke (pun half intended) holding a vast sea at bay. That’s not to say that it deserves to remain on the books, but one has to remember not only what it stands in place of, but also that it takes, at minimum, four Justices to approve the court placing the case on its docket.
reason
It seems like the cases don’t really have the legs to challenge existing law.
@doubter:
It would take a serious sea change in congress and/or nearly every state house to get a constitutional amendment pasted.
doubter
@reason: i realize that. what i’m saying is that it would make it easier to rally support to “protect” marriage.