TribLIVE

| Opinion/The Review

 
Larger text Larger text Smaller text Smaller text | Order Photo Reprints

A matter of jurisprudence

Email Newsletters

Click here to sign up for one of our email newsletters.

Letters home ...

Traveling abroad for personal, educational or professional reasons?

Why not share your impressions — and those of residents of foreign countries about the United States — with Trib readers in 150 words?

The world's a big place. Bring it home with Letters Home.

Contact Colin McNickle (412-320-7836 or cmcnickle@tribweb.com).

Daily Photo Galleries

'American Coyotes' Series

Traveling by Jeep, boat and foot, Tribune-Review investigative reporter Carl Prine and photojournalist Justin Merriman covered nearly 2,000 miles over two months along the border with Mexico to report on coyotes — the human traffickers who bring illegal immigrants into the United States. Most are Americans working for money and/or drugs. This series reports how their operations have a major impact on life for residents and the environment along the border — and beyond.

Wednesday, March 20, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
 

“Under the Constitution, the regulation and control of marital and family relationships are reserved to the states.”

U.S. Supreme Court

Sherrer v. Sherrer (1948)

WASHINGTON

The Defense of Marriage Act is an exception to the rule that a law's title is uninformative about the law's purpose. DOMA's purpose is precisely what its title says. Which is why many conservatives and liberals should be uneasy Wednesday when the Supreme Court hears arguments about DOMA's constitutionality.

Conservatives who supported DOMA should want the act overturned because its purpose is constitutionally improper. Liberals who want the act struck down should be discomfited by the reason the court should give when doing this.

DOMA, passed in 1996, defines marriage for the purpose of federal law as a legal union between one man and one woman. Because approximately 1,100 federal laws pertain to marriage, DOMA's defenders argue that Congress merely exercised its power to define a term used in many statutes. But before 1996, federal statutes functioned without this definition, which obviously was adopted for the “defense” of marriage against state policies involving a different definition. “Before DOMA,” an amicus brief submitted by a group of federalism scholars notes, “federal law took state law as it found it.”

The question now is whether DOMA is “necessary and proper” for the exercise of a constitutionally enumerated congressional power. There is no such power pertaining to marriage. This subject is a state responsibility.

DOMA's obvious purpose is, as the scholars' brief says, “to reject state governments' policy judgments.” Its purpose is to endorse, and to some extent enforce, the traditional understanding of marriage. The scholars' brief says: “Congress may regulate in this area to the extent necessary to further its enumerated powers. But it may not simply reject the states' policy judgments as if it had the same authority to make domestic-relations law as they do. That is the difference between a government with a general police power and a government of limited and enumerated powers.”

Professor Ernest A. Young of the Duke Law School, the principal author of the federalism brief, says the operation of DOMA cannot help but burden states because “federal and state law are pervasively intertwined.” To understand the harm that could be done by an unlimited federal power to define the terms of domestic-relations law, Young recalls when a few states, venturing beyond the national consensus, began experimenting with no-fault divorce. Suppose, Young says, Congress passed a statute refusing recognition, for purposes of federal law, of any divorce where neither party made a showing of fault:

“The couple would continue to be treated as married for purposes of federal income tax, health care programs, and veterans' benefits. Imagine the chaos this would wreak in the administration of state programs, and the pressure it would impose on states not to experiment with divorce law.”

As the scholars' brief says, DOMA “shatters two centuries of federal practice” by creating “a blanket federal marital status that exists independent of states' family-status determinations.” Federalism, properly respected, enables diversity as an alternative to a congressionally imposed, continent-wide moral uniformity.

Liberals praise diversity but generally urge courts to permissively construe the Constitution in order to validate federal power to impose continental uniformities. DOMA is such an imposition. Liberals may be rescued from it by jurisprudence true to conservative principles, properly understood.

George F. Will is a columnist for The Washington Post and Newsweek.

Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.

 

 


Show commenting policy

Most-Read Stories

  1. Former SA star Wojciechowski still shooting on the basketball floor
  2. Senior designs Armstrong cross country course
  3. Steelers LB Timmons has grown into leadership role on defense
  4. Steelers RB Archer trying to catch up after tough rookie season
  5. Charges held against 3 in McKeesport business robbery
  6. Steelers notebook: Backup QB Gradkowski remains out with shoulder issue
  7. Alcoa among 13 firms in $140B carbon-footprint pledge
  8. Pirates third baseman Ramirez’s last ride is about winning a ring
  9. ‘Real’ people, solutions at heart of GOP ad blitz in Pa.
  10. Ownerless emu finds ‘buddy’ at new Greensburg home
  11. Gunbattle kills 21 at Afghan wedding party