The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act is being challenged by three lawsuits at this point and it seems very probable that when it finally arrives at the Supreme Court it will be struck down. States have historically been the final arbiter of marriage rights and the current Supreme Court is unlikely to back the federal government in such a clear states rights issue.
The trick to a successful challenge may lie in constructing a lawsuit against DOMA that the high court has almost no option but to favor. Of the three suits now pending, the most recent is the most clever in construction of its arguments.
The first suit was Gill v. Office of Personnel Management. Filed in Boston, the suit argues the statute denies same sex couples the financial benefits, such as the filing of joint tax returns and Social Security, that are granted to opposite sex marriages.
Smelt v. United States of America was filed shortly after Gill and attacked DOMA on Constitutional grounds, claiming the law violated the equal protection and due process clauses.
Emma Ruby Sachs makes a case that the third lawsuit, filed by the Attorney General of Massachusetts may be the winner.
...the Attorney General of Massachusetts filed a complaint that chiefly argues DOMA's violation of state's sovereignty over the definition and regulation of marriage.
The genius of this complaint is that it takes a conservative argument -- that liberal states should not be permitted to impose their tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality on the rest of the country -- and turns it around to benefit a state that really pioneered gay rights in the U.S.
Even a conservative justice would support the notion that federal encroachment over those few areas where states have sovereign jurisdiction is unconstitutional. In this case, that principle supports, at the very least, limiting the application of DOMA when it affects state programs with federal funding.
It will take a while for any of the lawsuits to make it to the high court, but there's enough firepower and inventive arguments behind the efforts to seriously undermine DOMA.
Comments