By: Evan Knott
On Sept. 10, 1996, lawmakers from around the nation passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) by a vote of 85-14 in the U.S. Senate and a 5 to 1 margin in the House of Representatives last July. The bill was met with President Clinton's signature, officially allowing states the right to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states as well as implement a federal definition of "marriage" and "spouse" for the first time in U.S. history. The passing of DOMA exhibits one of the most unprecedented and dismaying examples of pernicious government intrusion into the civil rights of America's homosexual community. This civil liberties defeat marks a genuine case for the potential tyranny of congressional majorities and the oppressive, unconstitutional ends of the extremist factions that manipulate them.
The DOMA's origins lie in a H.R. 3396, a bill proposed by Georgian Republican congressman Bob Barr, which quickly gathered the support of extreme right-wing religious political organizations such as the Traditional Values Coalition and the Family Research Council. The next day, Senator Don Nickles (R-Okla.) and sole co-sponsorer Senator Bob Dole (R-Kans) introduced the Senate version of the bill. The final version of the bill signed into law defines marriage as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife," while a spouse is defined as "a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." The terms of the resolution permit the government to deny homosexual couples the rights of heterosexual couples, including Social Security survivor benefits, inheritance rights, and veteran's benefits. In addition, the federal government will refuse to recognize same-sex marriages even if individual states choose to defend the liberties of homosexual Americans.
The constitutionality of the DOMA is a matter that legal experts have been strongly refuting, and for good reason. The United States Constitution includes a provision entitled "The Full Faith and Credit Clause." Under this clause, states are required to recognize the "acts, records and proceedings" of all other states. This crucial component of the Constitution is what permits states to recognize heterosexual marriage and adoption performed in other states. Clearly, the absurdly and ambiguously defined DOMA undermines and obscures the jurisdiction of The Full Faith and Credit Clause. During the civil right's movement thirty years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court found similar state marriage laws refusing to recognize interracial marriage unconstitutional. The circumstances surrounding the DOMA present similar violations of the constitution, and contain a valid foundation for which strong legal opposition should be taken on this law. Furthermore, supporters of the law seem to forget a crucial underlying element of the administration of the DOMA. The provisions and definitions included in the DOMA are little more than a mean-spirited and oppressive amicus brief, a legal opinion superseding a law. The passing of the DOMA exhibits an instance of Congress passing an amicus brief illegitimately, since the law-making body has no real jurisdiction when it comes to applying constitutional law.
Perhaps the most dismaying aspect of the passing of the DOMA lies in the nature from which it was created. Congressional Republicans, in a desperate attempt to salvage their dismal approval ratings before the November election, have decided to divide the nation with the help of some of the most factious right-wing organizations in history. This scheme to legislate morality and impose narrow Christian-held views into law sticks a disappointing and hypocritical jab in Bob Dole's lagging presidential campaign. The Republican candidate's campaign focuses on reducing government regulation and giving power back to the states as written in his beloved 10th Amendment. However, Mr. Dole's unmitigated support for the bill will surely create a monstrous federal government intrusion into the rights of states. The saddest part of the DOMA lies in its failure to divide the country, or at least engage it in an intelligent debate about the rights of homosexual Americans. This is best demonstrated by President Clinton's quick signing of the original version of the bill, so as to not risk driving a potentially dangerous political wedge between himself and his opponent. It is truly a sad point in American history when the rights of hundreds of thousands of Americans are trampled by election year politics. The Defense of Marriage Act must be repealed; it denies basic civil liberties to Americans while creating the means from which pernicious factions of the government can inflict their unconstitutional ends.