Post by RS Davis on Jan 26, 2005 16:19:47 GMT -5
QUEERLY BELOVED
Judge upholds "traditional" marriage
Affirms federal law, rejects extending Massachusetts policy to Florida
A federal judge in Florida yesterday rejected an effort to extend a Massachusetts same-sex marriage to the Sunshine State, thereby upholding the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA.
Judge James Moody Jr. dismissed a challenge to Florida's marriage laws, ruling in the first case to uphold the DOMA against challenge from same-sex marriage advocates, said a statement from Liberty Counsel, which filed to intervene in the case.
The DOMA, passed by Congress in 1996, says one state does not have to recognize an out-of-state, same-sex marriage.
The suit was filed by two lesbians, the Rev. Nancy Wilson and Paula Schoenwether, who traveled to Provincetown, Mass., in May to get married and then sought to have their marriage recognized in their home state of Florida.
In upholding the DOMA, the court wrote, "Florida is not required to recognize or apply Massachusetts' same-sex marriage law because it clearly conflicts with Florida's legitimate public policy of opposing same-sex marriage. … Adopting Plaintiffs' rigid and literal interpretation of the Full Faith and Credit would create a license for a single state to create national policy."
In his ruling, Moody also rejected the federal due-process claim, stating that "no federal court has recognized that this right includes the right to marry a person of the same sex."
The decision also stated that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas cannot be read as creating a fundamental right to same-sex marriage. Moody expressly found that the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence "was explicitly clear that its holding did not extend to same-sex marriage."
The court further found that "homosexuality is not a suspect class that would require subjecting DOMA to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause." The ruling states the federal DOMA was presumed constitutional and the burden was on the plaintiff to negate "every conceivable basis which might support [the legislation], whether or not the basis has a foundation in the record."
Said Mathew D. Staver, president and general counsel of Liberty Counsel: "The decision to uphold traditional marriage is a common-sense ruling. There is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Although the court upheld the Defense of Marriage Act, we still need a federal constitutional amendment so that we don't have to scour the wire services hour by hour to determine whether our marriage laws remain intact. Marriage is a fundamental basis of our society, and it must be preserved and stabilized once and for all through the passage of a constitutional amendment."
Judge upholds "traditional" marriage
Affirms federal law, rejects extending Massachusetts policy to Florida
A federal judge in Florida yesterday rejected an effort to extend a Massachusetts same-sex marriage to the Sunshine State, thereby upholding the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA.
Judge James Moody Jr. dismissed a challenge to Florida's marriage laws, ruling in the first case to uphold the DOMA against challenge from same-sex marriage advocates, said a statement from Liberty Counsel, which filed to intervene in the case.
The DOMA, passed by Congress in 1996, says one state does not have to recognize an out-of-state, same-sex marriage.
The suit was filed by two lesbians, the Rev. Nancy Wilson and Paula Schoenwether, who traveled to Provincetown, Mass., in May to get married and then sought to have their marriage recognized in their home state of Florida.
In upholding the DOMA, the court wrote, "Florida is not required to recognize or apply Massachusetts' same-sex marriage law because it clearly conflicts with Florida's legitimate public policy of opposing same-sex marriage. … Adopting Plaintiffs' rigid and literal interpretation of the Full Faith and Credit would create a license for a single state to create national policy."
In his ruling, Moody also rejected the federal due-process claim, stating that "no federal court has recognized that this right includes the right to marry a person of the same sex."
The decision also stated that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas cannot be read as creating a fundamental right to same-sex marriage. Moody expressly found that the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence "was explicitly clear that its holding did not extend to same-sex marriage."
The court further found that "homosexuality is not a suspect class that would require subjecting DOMA to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause." The ruling states the federal DOMA was presumed constitutional and the burden was on the plaintiff to negate "every conceivable basis which might support [the legislation], whether or not the basis has a foundation in the record."
Said Mathew D. Staver, president and general counsel of Liberty Counsel: "The decision to uphold traditional marriage is a common-sense ruling. There is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Although the court upheld the Defense of Marriage Act, we still need a federal constitutional amendment so that we don't have to scour the wire services hour by hour to determine whether our marriage laws remain intact. Marriage is a fundamental basis of our society, and it must be preserved and stabilized once and for all through the passage of a constitutional amendment."
