Can't Touch This -- M.C. Hammer

In Government yesterday, we discussed editorials and articles from the past couple days. One of the biggest topics was the ruling of the California Supreme Court that struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage. The Court ruled that sexual orientation, like race or gender, does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny legal rights. While I do in fact agree with this position, it was not the argument over the legality (or illegality) of the decision which peaked my interest most. Instead, the mention of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) evoked greater curiosity.


In the beginning of the school year, we learned about the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. This clause, in Article IV Section I, states:


Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.


From what I understood, this clause applies to such contracts as Marriage Licenses, Drivers Licenses, etc. Any marriage license that was issued in one state would stand for all legal purposes in any other state within the U.S.



The Defense of Marriage Act, passed by former President Clinton in 1996, states:

1. No state (or other political subdivison within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
2. The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.


The Act was passed (with the greatest support from anti-gay marriage activists) in anticipation of states legalizing same-sex marriage and with concerns that couples would use the Full Faith and Credit Clause to carry the contract across state borders. It seems to me that the law was passed to dodge a very specific and direct aspect of the U.S. Constitution.


I feel that the DoMA is in fact a direct violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. According to the Supremacy Clause, the Federal Constitution stands as the supreme law of the land. In turn, the DoMA has no authority to limit how marriage contracts can/cannot retain legitimacy across state borders. A (relatively) hasty legislative act cannot simply overturn the careful work of our forefathers. Although the doctrine of marriage is enumerated to the states, there seems to be a very fine line between the authority of the federal government and the state governments in respect to marriage contracts and licenses. Perhaps, a Supreme Court ruling could set a clearer precedent on this matter.


I believe that if someone challenged the constitutionality of the DoMA in the Supreme Court, he or she would stand a great chance of winning or at least enacting change through media attention or public opinion. From how I see it, the DoMA stands in direct contradiction with some of the principle statutes of the Constitution. It is inexcusable that this Act has stood without little to no judicial intervention for over a decade.