Marriage Reaffirmed in Three U.S. Courts
Marriage was unanimously reaffirmed across the United States as three judges in three separate courts upheld three state laws protecting traditional marriages, this week.
Marriage was unanimously reaffirmed across the United States as three judges in three separate courts upheld three state laws protecting traditional marriages, this week.
In the first ruling of its kind, a federal judge in Florida upheld the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) by dismissing a case brought by a lesbian couple that sought to have their Massachusetts marriage license recognized in their home state, January 19.
The U.S. District Judge James S. Moody Jr. agreed with Attorney General John Ashcroft’s motion to dismiss the case of Nacy Wilson and Paula Schoenwether – a lesbian couple that got “married” in Massachusetts last year. In July, 2004, the couple asked the state court to overturn the DOMA, a federal law that allows states to opt out of recognizing the same sex marriage licenses assigned in another state.
Get Our Latest News for FREE
In his motion to dismiss the case, Moody ruled that the DOMA does not violate the U.S. Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause, as the plaintiffs asserted.
"Adopting Plaintiffs' rigid and literal interpretation of the Full Faith and Credit [Clause] would create a license for a single State to create national policy," Moody wrote in his 18-page opinion.
"… The Supreme Court has clearly established that 'the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require a State to apply another State's law in violation of its own legitimate public policy.' Florida is not required to recognize or apply Massachusetts' same-sex marriage law because it clearly conflicts with Florida's legitimate public policy of opposing same-sex marriage."
Matthew Staver, president of the Florida-based Liberty Counsel, applauded the ruling, calling it a “common sense” decision.
“The decision to uphold traditional marriage is a common sense ruling. There is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage,” said Staver in a statement released the same day.
Nonetheless, Staver explained that the DOMA cannot be left as the only federal law to protect marriage, since it can be overturned by the courts.
“Although the court upheld the Defense of Marriage Act, we still need a federal constitutional amendment so that we don’t have to scour the wire services hour by hour to determine whether our marriage laws remain intact,” said Staver. “Marriage is a fundamental basis of our society, and it must be preserved and stabilized once and for all through the passage of a constitutional amendment.”
Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family agreed, saying the ruling was a “significant victory for marriage and democracy,” but “Unfortunately, at any time, marriage in any jurisdiction is only one judge away from being ruled unconstitutional."
Florida, similar to the majority of the US states, has a law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman only.
Pro-family leaders have held onto the DOMA as a temporary safety net against the legalization of same-sex marriages in all fifty states. Should the DOMA be overturned, every state may be forced to recognize the “gay marriage” licenses issued in Massachusetts.
According to legal experts, the case, Wilson v. Ake, is the first case where the DOMA is protected under a direct challenge; in August, the DOMA was upheld by the US. Bankruptcy Court in Washington state, but the case involved a could we got “married” in Canada.
Meanwhile, the same day, the Louisiana Supreme Court unanimously overturned a decision of a lower court judge who tossed the Louisiana’s Defense of Marriage Amendment last October.
“This decision is a victory for the people of Louisiana and for justice and democracy. The court today upheld the will of the 78 percent of Louisiana voters who said ‘yes’ to the single issue of defending marriage from all contemporary threats,” said Mike Johnson, a Shreveport-based Alliance Defense Fund attorney who defended the amendment. “It makes no difference to those voters whether the threat is an attempt to redefine marriage or an attempt to rename it. Either would do great harm to the institution of marriage.”
On Oct. 5, State District Court Judge William Morvant ruled that the Louisiana amendment was flawed because he believed it addressed two subjects: marriage and civil unions. The Louisiana Supreme Court disagreed on Wednesday, however, stating in today’s opinion, “Each provision of the amendment is germane to the single object of defense of marriage and constitutes an element of the plan advanced to achieve this object.”
Johnson agreed with the opinion, saying, “The amendment has one purpose: to protect marriage from attack,”
The amendment guarantees marriage in the states “shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.” It also prohibits the recognition of same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions or any other legal arrangements that are “identical” or “substantially similar” to marriage.
“This ruling sets a great precedent for the rest of the country. The approach of the amendments in eight of the 11 states in which voters approved amendments Nov. 2 is similar or identical to the approach of Louisiana’s amendment,” Johnson explained.
“We were confident we would win on appeal and always believed that the small number of people who disagreed with the majority vote would not prevail,” Johnson continued. “We believe lawsuits filed against marriage amendments in other states using the single-subject argument are also on shaky ground.”
Louisiana on Sept. 18 became one of six states to add a marriage amendment to its state constitution. Two-thirds of the states must pass such an amendment in order for the Federal Marriage Amendment to be legalized; two thirds of the House and the Senate must also pass the Amendment.
In yet another case, Thursday, the Indiana Court of Appeals let stand a state law prohibiting Indiana from recognizing same-sex “marriages.” In Thursday’s ruling, the Indiana appeals court ruled that the three homosexual couples who filed the case did not establish that they had a “core value” right to marry.
"Opposite-sex marriage furthers the legitimate state interest in encouraging opposite-sex couples to procreate responsibly and have and raise children within a stable environment," the ruling said.
