Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Dumb on DOMA
The decision of Eric Holder and the Obama administration represents a form of political courage, but of the wrong sort. I have no desire whatsoever to defend DOMA as a matter of federal policy and would surely urge the Congress to repeal it. My own libertarian instincts are that the government should not use its control over licenses or public funds to influence the way in which cash benefits and job opportunities are distributed throughout the country. But at the same time, the DOJ’s invocation of a history of discrimination against gays and lesbians and call for a level of heightened scrutiny is not the way in which this question should be resolved.
To start from the beginning, this is what DOMA, passed by large bipartisan majorities in both Houses, says.
Section 2. Powers reserved to the states:
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
Section 3. Definition of ‘marriage’ and ‘spouse’:
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
DOMA reflects the universal past practice in virtually every place in the world at the time of its adoption. It is now declared unconstitutional under a heightened scrutiny standard, which comes from no where in particular, and which is not attached to any particular clause of the Constitution, given that the equal protection guarantees run, formally at least, only against the states. Gay marriage is often compared with polygamy, and if the ban on the former is regarded as constitutionally required, the ban on the second should be more so. Unlike the status of gay marriage, the practice of polygamy historically has been far more extensive, and no argument that it is subject to abuse could lead to a ban on polygamy, any more than it could lead to a ban on all marriage.
What has happened here is that the President’s team thinks that it is possible to transform in fifteen years from a state of affairs where gay marriage was nowhere practiced, to one today in which no person could raise any rational objection to the practice that has historically never been adopted. The presidential coup takes place at a time when the political forces in support of gay marriage have reached levels of strength that were thought unobtainable even in 1996. There is no discrete and insular minority on this issue.
Nor does the President note what it means to brand a practice as irrational. To this day there are thoughtful people in religious groups that continue to hold fast against gay marriage, and their rights to determine what happens to their membership are necessarily impacted by this decision, for there is nothing in the curt statement from the Obama administration which explains why the Constitution should not be read to require the President of the Congress to impose obligations on these organizations to accept gay couples into their ranks. Orthodox Jews and Roman Catholics beware!
As to the legal effects of this decision, the choice of the President to surrender unilaterally (which could have been anticipated from his earlier actions) makes it unclear whether any private party has standing to defend DOMA. It also leaves open the question of whether the President has taken care to see that the laws are faithfully executed if new administrative orders will now include gay couples in benefits that Congress has denied to them by statute. This action therefore could lead to a constitutional crisis of some significance. It would have been so much wiser to stay out of choppy waters by working first for a repeal of the statute. But who can expect that level of prudence from this administration?
Published in General
I’m not sure why religion comes up when we discuss marriage.
The pre-Christian Romans, for instance, had marriage very similar to what we have today. Many of our wedding traditions date back to then. In fact, can somebody tell me where in the Bible it details how to conduct a wedding?
Its purpose of marriage isn’t religious or romantic, it is to determine lineage and parentage and inheritance. It isn’t to provide psychological validation. In that case it would be a masturbatory exercise.
Ironically.
What Obama has done here is more simple to describe: He’s vetoed the bill after the fact.
Richard putting aside for a moment the issue of substantive due process and the court’s standard of review, what are your thoughts on the Full Faith and Credit Clause?
Wouldn’t DOMA fail in that regard?
This also brings up why Presidents – of both parties – believe they can suspend the laws as if they were Charles I.
President’s are constitutionally obligated to enforce the laws. To put a different look to what AmishDude said: this is a selective enforcement of the law; enforcing only those laws he likes and refusing those he doesn’t.
Nor does the President note what it means to brand a practice as irrational. To this day there are thoughtful people in religious groups that continue to hold fast against gay marriage… Orthodox Jews and Roman Catholics beware!
Along those lines, this part especially troubles me: “The record contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships – precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against.” Note that he’s not merely saying expressions of moral disapproval sometimes cloak an underlying bigotry and animus, he simply equates them. Moral disapproval is “precisely” a “kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus,” nothing more.
I’m not opposed to same-sex couple forming a union with one another but can only see a slippery slope ahead with loosening the definition of marriage. There are Social Security survivorship benefits at stake here and if non-traditional unions are going to be called ‘marriages’ then what will be next?
The system is broke enough and won’t need a couple challenging the legal system to hear a case on why an incestuous couple [with a terminally ill family member] should be allowed to marry while the clear motive is to get a government check.
Doubt that could happen? There’s sick enough people who’ll do just that and will have the legal precedent to do just that.
Wouldn’t DOMA fail in that regard? ·Feb 23 at 1:27pm
Actually, I just noticed that Holder says Section 3 is unconstitutional, he never mentions Section 2. In other words, in his view it’s perfectly constitutional for one state to refuse to recognize another state’s marriage laws, but it violates the constitution for the federal government to define marriage as “a legal union between one man and one woman” for the purpose of federal law and benefits.
Another thing I don’t get. What’s the discrimination thing?
I’m not married. I never was and I never will be. There are many reasons not to be married. Where is the Holder Justice department to defend my rights?
And what if someone wants to marry but the other party doesn’t? Should the party that wants to marry still get these sweet, sweet benefits of marriage anyway?
Marriage is whatever state law says it is, but state law is whatever our black-robed kings, queens, and princes tell us it is. “Prohibited means mandatory?” “Yes, my Lord. Your wish is my command.”
Indeed.
Suppose there’s a Republican president in 2012 with a Democratic Congress.Could the President declare that Obamacare is unconstitutional and that the DoJ should not defend challenges to it’s constitutionality in federal courts?
One more question for Prof. Epstein:
AG Holder has concluded that on the substantive due process issue, the appropriate standard of judicial review is “substantially related to an important government objective.” That’s the intermediate test.
Does that mean the President is still taking the position that gay marriage is not a “fundamental right” (otherwise Holder would have used the “strict scrutiny” standard of “narrowly tailored to protect a compelling state interest”)?
What has me puzzled is that Holder takes the time to go through the tests of history of discrimination, powerlessness, etc. Those are the tests for a “suspect class” which would raise the judicial review all the way up strict scrutiny.
What am I missing? Why the strict scrutiny analysis if he is conceding the intermediate standard of review of “substantially related to an important government objective?”
Interesting.
I’m not married. I never was and I never will be. There are many reasons not to be married. Where is the Holder Justice department to defend my rights?
And what if someone wants to marry but the other party doesn’t? Should the party that wants to marry still get these sweet, sweet benefits of marriage anyway? ·Feb 23 at 1:50pm
As some radio talkers (Boortz, for one) like to say, “A gay person has the same rights, including the right to marry, as a straight person.”
I’m of the somewhat cynical mind that gay couples want gay marriage legalized primarily for the same tax and inheritance benefits that are now given to conventionally married U.S. couples.
If that future president were as lawless as the present administration, who’s to stop them. The famous Jackson quote about the courts lack of enforcement powers comes to mind. A congress and sitting president can no longer make laws with the assurance the the next constitutional officer to occupy the office will carry out his obligations.
The old fashioned word is TYRANNY.
Is it not an inverted form of rule by decree?
The argument is that gays are citizens, so they’re entitled to do whatever other citizens are allowed to do. But that’s simplistic.
The consent of society is what’s missing here.
By treating it as a civil right, gay marriage advocates claim that the rest of society owes them our approval, sanction, and consent. Well, to be blunt, my approval is mine to give. No one has a right to demand it of me. Until as recently as the passage of DOMA, in fact, our society refused to approve. California’s Prop8 refused to approve.
Now the lawyers (David Boies, Ted Olsen, Eric Holder, etc.) say we don’t have any right to disapprove? Society’s consent is not required?
Then it isn’t marriage.
Wouldn’t DOMA fail in that regard? ·Feb 23 at 1:27pm
Did you ever hear of the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (28 U.S.C.A. § 1738A)? The Violence Against Women Act (Pub. L. No. 103-322 [codified in scattered sections of 8 U.S.C.A., 18 U.S.C.A., 42 U.S.C.A.])?
Wouldn’t DOMA fail in that regard? ·Feb 23 at 1:27pm
This is a real issue. The usual view is that a state could take into account its own important public policy objectives in deciding whether or not to recognize certain acts in other states. That was the understanding before the gay rights issue started to heat up, and DOMA was thought to be a corrective against that trend. But if in fact we have some heightened scrutiny that applies to make DOMA unconstitutional, there is a question whether that view requires states to back down on their now-unconstitutional public policy objective. This would not happen without a huge fight, because the President is taking his own position, which is not binding on any one else, at least yet. So the situation seems to lead to fragmented authority, at least until the court gets involved, which means that the Prop 8 case takes on a new significance.
AmishDude: Another thing I don’t get. What’s the discrimination thing?
I’m not married. I never was and I never will be. There are many reasons not to be married. Where is the Holder Justice department to defend my rights?
And what if someone wants to marry but the other party doesn’t? Should the party that wants to marry still get these sweet, sweet benefits of marriage anyway? ·Feb 23 at 1:50pm
I’m of the somewhat cynical mind that gay couples want gay marriage legalized primarily for the same tax and inheritance benefits that are now given to conventionally married U.S. couples. ·Feb 23 at 2:26pm
Clearly the single are being discriminated against and we need recompense.
I’m more cynical. Using the discrimination argument says that it’s all about psychological validation.
Does that mean the President is still taking the position that gay marriage is not a “fundamental right” (otherwise Holder would have used the “strict scrutiny” standard of “narrowly tailored to protect a compelling state interest”)?
What has me puzzled is that Holder takes the time to go through the tests of history of discrimination, powerlessness. Those are the tests for a “suspect class” which would raise the judicial review all the way up strict scrutiny.
What am I missing? Why the strict scrutiny analysis if he is conceding the intermediate standard of review of “substantially related to an important government objective?”
The levels of scrutiny are manipulable, so that one can talk the language of intermediate scrutiny and still end up with a stealth strict scrutiny. The decision here was to soft pedal the standard, but then to act as though it were strict scrutiny. The Administration wants to have some cover for its decision, so it moves only one step up the scale, not two.
The levels of scrutiny are manipulable, so that one can talk the language of intermediate scrutiny and still end up with a stealth strict scrutiny. The decision here was to soft pedal the standard, but then to act as though it were strict scrutiny. The Administration wants to have some cover for its decision, so it moves only one step up the scale, not two. ·Feb 23 at 2:55pm
Thanks Professor. I thought Holder had both standards in there. You are right – he’s being stealthy.
For picking that up, do you think I can go back 23 years and dispute that C I received in Constitutional Law when I was a first year student?
Tommy De Seno: Richard putting aside for a moment the issue of substantive due process and the court’s standard of review, what are your thoughts on the Full Faith and Credit Clause?
Wouldn’t DOMA fail in that regard? ·Feb 23 at 1:27pm
Again, did you ever hear of the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (28 U.S.C.A. § 1738A)? The Violence Against Women Act (Pub. L. No. 103-322 [codified in scattered sections of 8 U.S.C.A., 18 U.S.C.A., 42 U.S.C.A.])?
Wouldn’t DOMA fail in that regard? ·Feb 23 at 1:27pm
This is a real issue. The usual view is that a state could take into account its own important public policy objectives in deciding whether or not to recognize certain acts in other states. That was the understanding before the gay rights issue started to heat up, and DOMA was thought to be a corrective against that trend. But if in fact we have some heightened scrutiny that applies to make DOMA unconstitutional, there is a question whether that view requires states to back down on their now-unconstitutional public policy objective.
Again, did you ever hear of the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (28 U.S.C.A. § 1738A)? The Violence Against Women Act (Pub. L. No. 103-322 [codified in scattered sections of 8 U.S.C.A., 18 U.S.C.A., 42 U.S.C.A.])? ·Feb 23 at 3:15pm
Ok – tell me your point!
As to the legal effects of this decision, the choice of the President to surrender unilaterally (which could have been anticipated from his earlier actions) makes it unclear whether any private party has standing to defend DOMA.
Would this essentially eliminate any vehicle for bumping DOMA up the ladder to the Supreme Court — despite Holder’s simultaneous (cynical?) insistence that constitutional adjudication is required? I would love to know what Holder has in mind here:
“Our attorneys will also notify the courts of our interest in providing Congress a full and fair opportunity to participate in the litigation in those cases. We will remain parties to the case and continue to represent the interests of the United States throughout the litigation.”
Has there been any hint about what role the Office of Legal Counsel might have played in this process?
What struck me as a layman about Holder’s declaration is how emphatically he attributes the DOMA decision to the President personally, when Obama so regularly insists he leaves such determinations entirely in Holder’s hands. That change seems like a remarkable measure of just how political and provocative the Administration’s new stance is intended to be.
President’s are constitutionally obligated to enforce the laws. To put a different look to what AmishDude said: this is a selective enforcement of the law; enforcing only those laws he likes and refusing those he doesn’t. ·Feb 23 at 1:29pm
My sense here is that Obama is intentionally creating a constitutional crisis over this issue. The question is, why?
Ok – tell me your point!
My point is previous Federal Legislation has been used to over-ride the “Full Faith and Credit Clause” of the Constitution. To wit, child custody determinations had historically fallen under the jurisdiction of state courts, and before the 1970s, other states did not accord them full faith and credit enforcement. As a result, a divorced parent who was unhappy with one state’s custody decision could sometimes obtain a more favorable ruling from another state. This was an incentive for a dissatisfied parent to kidnap a child and move to another state in order to petition for custody. In 1980, Congress passed the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (28 U.S.C.A. § 1738A), which aids enforcement and promotes finality in child custody decisions by providing that valid custody decrees are entitled to full faith and credit enforcement in other states. The Violence Against Women Act extends full faith and credit to the enforcement of protective orders, which previously were not enforced except in the state where they were rendered. This gave a new measure of protection to victims who moved to a different state after obtaining a protective order in one state.
I will add that your interpretation of the “Full Faith and Credit Clause” renders Federalism obsolete. Or am I reading you incorrectly?
My own libertarian instincts are that the government should not use its control over licenses or public funds to influence the way in which cash benefits and job opportunities are distributed throughout the country.
Isn’t this the whole problem here? What if we decouple the financial incentives from the equation? Would that be a step in the right direction?
My sense here is that Obama is intentionally creating a constitutional crisis over this issue. The question is, why? ·Feb 23 at 4:17pm
Maybe as a distraction from his utter failure of leadership in other areas?
“Gay marriage is often compared with polygamy, and if the ban on the former is regarded as constitutionally required, the ban on the second should be more so. Unlike the status of gay marriage, the practice of polygamy historically has been far more extensive, and no argument that it is subject to abuse could lead to a ban on polygamy, any more than it could lead to a ban on all marriage.”
Just so. This opens the gates for polygamy, consanguinous unions, and eventually child marriage. It’s all a civil right, you know.
The comtempt this administration has for the sensibilities of the country is appalling.