Judge Throws Out Same-Sex Marriage Suit
TAMPA, Fla. (AP) -- In what is believed to be the first ruling of its kind, a judge on Wednesday upheld the federal law letting states ban same-sex marriages, dismissing a lawsuit by two women seeking to have their Massachusetts marriage recognized here.Attorneys for conservative groups hailed the ruling by U.S. District Judge James S. Moody as an important first step, but the plaintiffs promised to appeal.
"This is a legal shot heard 'round the world," said attorney Ellis Rubin, who filed the lawsuit on the women's behalf. "But we are not giving up. ... This case is going to be resolved in the U.S. Supreme Court, and I have said that since the day I filed it."
Although several federal cases are challenging the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, attorneys said Wednesday's ruling was the first by a federal judge on a direct challenge to the law.
Moody sided with former Attorney General John Ashcroft, who argued in court filings that the government has a legitimate interest in allowing states to ban same-sex marriages, namely to encourage "stable relationships" for the rearing of children by both biological parents.
Apparently Judge Moody found that marriage is not a "fundamental right" and applied the rational basis test. Details here from the AP via WiredNews.com.
UPDATE: Judge Moody's Order is here. (link via How Appealing)
Comments
"The women argued that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional because it was discriminatory on the basis of sex and violated their fundamental rights.
But Moody disagreed, saying the law was not discriminatory because it treats men and women equally and that the government met its burden of stating a legitimate interest for allowing marriages to exist only between men and women."
I was discussing a Fourteenth Amendment issue relating to homosexual marriages with my con law prof earlier this week. He agreed with me that the those seeking to allow gay marriages will probably not win on equal protection grounds. The theory being just what the judge described above.
Personally, I think marriage is a religious institution and should be kept out of government. Rather, government should recognize unions between people and let the churches, temples, synagogues, and mosques deal with conferring the title of "marriage" to couples. In a sense, you could perhaps argue that the government's recognition of marriage is a violation of the establishment clause as it gives preferential treatment to those who believe in the religious institution of marriage.
Posted by: Arvind | January 19, 2005 10:58 PM