This doesn't actually challenge DOMA, which merely *allows* states to not recognize SSM. It doesn't forbid recognition.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Are you sure about that?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Pretty sure.
The applicable text:
quote: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.
The "no... ...shall be required" part leads me to understand that states are allowed to recognize SSM from other states, but they are not required to.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
The DOMA also prevents the federal gov't from recognizing gay marriage. This is how it effects DC. The feds run DC.
I don't see a constitutional challenge to the DOMA, but this DOES bring it to the attention of a congress and a president that might DO something about it. In order to allow DC to recognize SSMs performed elsewhere, the DOMA must be modified.
But I'm not holding my breath. While the republicans have made their beliefs *very* clear, the democrats have tried to have it both ways on this issue forever. Let's hope they have the courage to do what's right and repeal the DOMA all together.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
This specific thing isn't a challenge to DOMA, especially not on constitutional grounds. I'm pretty sure Congressional okaying of DC council decisions has no bearing on Congressional legislation.
To the best of my knowledge, the best challenge to DOMA is the Full Faith and Credit Clause, but it hasn't been challenged yet, most likely I would think because there are a relatively small number of homosexual married couples (given the pretty small number of the population that live in states that allow some measure of gay marriage), or just because no one wants to take the risk with this court.
The timing is good. With Democrats in charge, it's likely to pass, especially right now. If it were a year from now with the midterms in full swing, a lot of Blue Dogs and Dems on the cusp might consider voting it down to protect Republican challengers, but the midterms are far enough away to pass this and then focus on other things. Their argument will be that voting it down interferes with the democratic decisions of DC. Republicans will he hard pressed to argue against that, it'll come down to an internal battle of ideologies between the role of government (non-interventionist) and their morals (no gay marriage). It'll be interesting to see how they reconcile that and their vote.