Liberals hailed the move while social conservatives decried the unanimous decision by a three-judge First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling declaring the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as unconstitutional in the Gill v. Office of Personnel Management case.
Brian Brown, president of the conservative National Organization for Marriage, claimed that the ruling was “elitist.” However, the court disagreed entirely, stating indirectly (emphasize the indirectly) that heterosexual couples cannot receive favorable access to federal benefits while homosexual couples cannot.
And while this ruling seems to be a sweeping support for the rights of gay people, it actually is not. The court — rather brilliantly I might add — avoided a culture clash by essentially saying that the passage of DOMA simply doesn’t make sense more than it invades upon the rights of the LGBT community. Here’s why:
They essentially pointed out that DOMA was defended legally as a protection of traditional marriage and supported the rearing of children by two parents of the opposite sex — but DOMA doesn’t really do either task. Some states permit gay couples to rear children. In essence, it is not that DOMA takes away the rights of LGBT couples but, rather, doesn’t provide any benefit for heterosexual couples.
The ruling stated:
“Although the House Report is filled with encomia to heterosexual marriage, DOMA does not increase benefits to opposite-sex couples–whose marriages may in any event be childless, unstable or both–or explain how denying benefits to same-sex couples will reinforce heterosexual marriage. Certainly, the denial will not affect the gender choices of those seeking marriage. This is not merely a matter of poor fit of remedy to perceived problem, but a lack of any demonstrated connection between DOMA’s treatment of same-sex couples and its asserted goal of strengthening the bonds and benefits to society of heterosexual marriage.” [my emphasis]
The court shies from outright saying that homosexual couples deserve the same respect as their heterosexual counterparts; rather, they point out the inefficiencies of DOMA upholding what its defenders claim it upholds. This wasn’t a branding of morality but a — rather banal, I might add — defense of the simple lack of logic. In other words, defenders of DOMA have a well-intentioned defense of traditional marriage but DOMA does nothing to uphold that defense. This is conservative intelligence at its finest: avoid cultural and philosophical defenses and stick to the constitution and argumentation provided.
Of course, there is no denying that it is still a win for gay rights advocates and a testament to the movement’s incredible speed (after all, it was under the supposedly liberal Clinton Administration that DOMA was enacted). But as the court points out, there is still a lot of work to be done.