In 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled in Baehr v. Miike that the state would have to demonstrate a compelling interest in order to continue its ban on same-sex marriages and sent the issue back to trial court. In 1996, the trial court ruled that the state could not show such a compelling interest and effectively expanded legal marriage to same-sex couples. That same year and largely in response to the Hawaii judicial decision, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) with overwhelming bipartisan support and it was signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton. DOMA guaranteed that states would not have to recognize other states’ same-sex unions under the Constitution’s full faith and credit clause and defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman at the federal level. In 1998, voters in Hawaii amended their state constitution to once again prohibit same-sex marriage.
On November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that the state’s prohibition of same-sex marriage violated the state constitution. The legislature subsequently declined to place a state constitutional amendment on the ballot that would have given voters the opportunity to decide whether or not to allow same-sex marriage in their state. Although the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) was originally introduced by former Colorado Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave on May 21 of that year, prior to the Goodridge ruling, there can be no doubt that the legal battle in Massachusetts was a catalyst for the amendment. The FMA defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman and would have prohibited same-sex marriage throughout the United States.
Ultimately, Goodridge led to an election year battle over same-sex marriage in 2004. President George W. Bush supported the FMA while Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, his Democratic opponent, opposed it. Although the amendment did not pass the House by the necessary 2/3 margin and never even overcame a filibuster in the Senate, the debate led to numerous state referenda prohibiting same-sex marriage and undoubtedly contributed to Kerry’s defeat. Renamed the Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA), the amendment has occasionally been reintroduced in Congress to no avail.
The battle over same-sex marriage essentially died after the 2004 election. In 2008, neither Obama nor McCain favored amending the Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage and both stated that decisions on marriage should be left to the states. Although a few state courts and legislatures have granted some version of legal recognition to same-sex unions, anytime same-sex unions have been put directly to voters they have been rejected. The constant rejection of same-sex unions by voters indicates that opponents of same-sex marriage represent a political sleeping giant. That giant may have been awakened last week.
On July 8, Judge Joseph L. Tauro of the U.S. District Court in Boston ruled in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management that Section 3 of DOMA violates the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause, and in Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services that the same section of DOMA violates the Tenth Amendment. Although Gill and Massachusetts stop short of ruling the full faith and credit clause exemption, which is found in Section 2, unconstitutional, the damage has been done. A federal court has now ruled that Congress cannot define marriage at the federal level as a union between one man and one woman without amending the Constitution. Anyone who thinks there won’t be a renewed push for the Marriage Protection Amendment is either delusional or in serious denial.
On November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that the state’s prohibition of same-sex marriage violated the state constitution. The legislature subsequently declined to place a state constitutional amendment on the ballot that would have given voters the opportunity to decide whether or not to allow same-sex marriage in their state. Although the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) was originally introduced by former Colorado Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave on May 21 of that year, prior to the Goodridge ruling, there can be no doubt that the legal battle in Massachusetts was a catalyst for the amendment. The FMA defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman and would have prohibited same-sex marriage throughout the United States.
Ultimately, Goodridge led to an election year battle over same-sex marriage in 2004. President George W. Bush supported the FMA while Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, his Democratic opponent, opposed it. Although the amendment did not pass the House by the necessary 2/3 margin and never even overcame a filibuster in the Senate, the debate led to numerous state referenda prohibiting same-sex marriage and undoubtedly contributed to Kerry’s defeat. Renamed the Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA), the amendment has occasionally been reintroduced in Congress to no avail.
The battle over same-sex marriage essentially died after the 2004 election. In 2008, neither Obama nor McCain favored amending the Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage and both stated that decisions on marriage should be left to the states. Although a few state courts and legislatures have granted some version of legal recognition to same-sex unions, anytime same-sex unions have been put directly to voters they have been rejected. The constant rejection of same-sex unions by voters indicates that opponents of same-sex marriage represent a political sleeping giant. That giant may have been awakened last week.
On July 8, Judge Joseph L. Tauro of the U.S. District Court in Boston ruled in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management that Section 3 of DOMA violates the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause, and in Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services that the same section of DOMA violates the Tenth Amendment. Although Gill and Massachusetts stop short of ruling the full faith and credit clause exemption, which is found in Section 2, unconstitutional, the damage has been done. A federal court has now ruled that Congress cannot define marriage at the federal level as a union between one man and one woman without amending the Constitution. Anyone who thinks there won’t be a renewed push for the Marriage Protection Amendment is either delusional or in serious denial.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire