After New York,
New Look at Defense of Marriage Act
Published: June 27, 2011 - New York Times
New Yorkfs new law allowing same-sex
marriage could bring renewed focus to an embattled federal law that says
other states do not have to recognize such unions.
The Defense
of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, forbids federal recognition of same-sex
marriage.
But a less prominent part of the law says that no state can be forced to
acknowledge a same-sex couplefs marriage from another state.
With New Yorkfs law applying to 19 million residents and those from outside
the state as well, a surge in same-sex marriages could ensue, with many of the
couples migrating to places where those marriages are not recognized.
Twenty-nine states have constitutional amendments that define marriage as
being between a man and a woman, and 12 have laws that ban recognition of
same-sex marriage. Douglas NeJaime, an associate professor at Loyola Law School,
said the increased number of married couples moving around the country would
force more states to gdeal with interstate recognition,h and would also have the
effect of gputting more pressure on the everyday treatment of same-sex couples
by the federal government.h
Opponents of same-sex marriage argue that the Defense of Marriage Act is,
therefore, essential to prevent activists from using the judicial system to
undercut the law in those states.
gIf DOMA is not there, the courts will begin the process of redefining
marriageh in the states that have already stood against it, said Tony Perkins,
the president of the Family Research Council in Washington, a Christian
organization that opposes same-sex marriage.
Kelly Shackelford, president of Liberty Institute, a conservative Christian
legal advocacy group in Plano, Tex., said the New York law was ga reconfirmation
of the very reason why DOMA was passed.h
But many constitutional law experts argue that the Defense of Marriage Act
gave states no more powers than they already had. Tobias Barrington Wolff, a
professor at the University of Pennsylvania law school, said, gTherefs never
been a mandatory obligation on the part of one state to recognize a marriage
from another state that would violate local public policy.h Even if the act is
overturned or repealed, the effect is not likely to force same-sex marriage upon
other states, he said.
The Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by President Bill Clinton, has
been under fierce attack in the courts. Last year, a federal judge in
Massachusetts declared the law unconstitutional as it applied to same-sex
couples for issues like inheritance taxes and federal health and pension
benefits. President Obama has expressed his opposition to DOMA, and in February
the Justice Department announced that it would not defend it in court, though it
would enforce the law until a final court decision was made on its
constitutionality.
The power of states to say no is tempered by the requirement of the
Constitution that they need to work together, even when laws conflict, said
Jennifer Pizer, the legal director of the Williams Institute at the University
of California, Los Angeles. gThe Constitution says in a general way that wefre
one country — states need to play nicely with each other and honor each othersf
rules,h she said.
But Professor Wolff and others point to a large body of decisions that shows
how the states have the power to reject other statesf rules based on public
policy principles. Conflicts in state laws over marriage have emerged in the
country for 200 years, he said, and include issues like the minimum age to marry
without parental consent, the right to marry first cousins and mixed-race
marriage.
The general principle has been that the state where the couple lives gets to
decide whether their marriages are valid on a case-by-case basis.
Even Southern states that outlawed mixed-race marriages have
recognized many of them when the couple resided elsewhere, for example when the
case involved the probate of an estate, said Andrew Koppelman, a
constitutional law expert at Northwestern University Law School. A
couple passing through a state that does not recognize their marriage
will often get recognition if one partner ends up in the hospital so that
the other can direct treatment, he said: gIt should be safe to travel
without having to carry a power of attorney with you wherever you go.h
Some states are so hostile to same-sex marriage that it is not certain that
they will follow those principles, he said.
Mr. Koppelman said courts were unlikely to recognize a marriage where the
couple traveled to another state to marry — say, on a weekend vacation — in
order to evade their home statefs prohibition of same-sex marriage. The
principle that each state governs its own residents is gunattractive to
supporters of same-sex marriage, including me,h but it has been the
prevailing view, he said.
If the Defense of Marriage Act is overturned, it is unlikely to change the
statesf ability to say no to gay and lesbian marriage — but a more sweeping
decision by the United States Supreme Court declaring a constitutional right for
same-sex couples to marry would. That is the legal theory behind the challenge
in California to that statefs same-sex marriage ban.
But the first lawsuits regarding same-sex marriage that are likely to reach
the Supreme Court challenge the Defense of Marriage Act and its effect on
benefits in a more surgically focused way. And Professor NeJaime of Loyola said
that even with the court fight over Californiafs law, the Supreme Court tends to
decide cases as narrowly as possible, so gI donft think wefre headed down that
road.h
Erik Eckholm contributed
reporting.