Same-sex marriage has had two victories in the nation this week, after Maine’s legislature passed a marriage equality bill and a federal court ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.
Maine approved the marriage equality bill after some debate and a close Senate vote of 25-22. Maine’s Governor, Martin O’Malley, is expected to sign the bill into law making Maryland the 8th state to permit state-recognized same-sex marriages. Gov. O’Malley released the following statement after the vote:
“…The common thread running through our efforts together in Maryland is the thread of human dignity; the dignity of work, the dignity of faith, the dignity of family, the dignity of every individual…”
As Maine stepped closer to joining other states in recognizing equal legal protections for lesbian and gay couples, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California made its own strides when it found the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.
In Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management, Karen Golinski, a federal employee, challenged her employer’s decision to deny federal health insurance benefits to her wife. Golinski was represented by the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. Specifically, the case challenged the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act(1 U.S.C. Section 7,), defining marriage strictly as a union between a man and a woman against the 5th Amendment.
The Department of Justice urged that the court review the legislation under strict scrutiny which has been used in the past for legislation affecting members of a suspect class, typically members of a particular race. Golinski alleged that her spouse’s denial or health insurance benefits was a violation of the 5th Amendment’s Due Process Clause, which prohibits the Federal Government from depriving citizens of life, liberty, or property without “due process”. Here, the Court considered a marriage a liberty right, similar to Lawrence v. Texas, where a person’s right to engage in same-sex sexual activity was also found to be a liberty right by the Supreme Court.
The extension of strict scrutiny to federal laws affecting sexual minorities would make it that much more difficult for the government to defend discriminatory laws affecting the LGBT communities. Previously, under the rational basis standard (the standard used when a law is not affecting a suspect class), the government only had to prove that it had a legitimate interest at stake in a newly created law and that the means used to enforce that interest were rationally related to the goal. Under strict scrutiny, the government interest must be compelling, and the means to achieve that interest must be strictly tailored to affect the issue using the least restrictive means possible. For those of you who aren’t law students, this may sound like a riddle and I’d have to agree with you, it pretty much is. The Court has discretion to interpret it as it sees fit according to precedent.
Basically, the Court found that the Defense of Marriage Act did not meet the strict scrutiny standard and is unconstitutionally harming the rights of American citizens. The next step is for the Supreme Court to agree to hear the case and make its own ruling, if it finds the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional the act will be removed from law.
Enjoy your weekend!
ScRiMac
AMI Reports 
Leave a comment