By George F. Will

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

“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.

1. Steelers quarterback Roethlisberger likes the revamped offense
2. Steelers’ Polamalu trim, fit as he arrives for OTAs
3. Penguins Insider: Time is right for Jokinen’s return
4. Kovacevic: Pens improve under microscope
5. Snider’s grand slam pushes Pirates to late victory over Cubs
6. Steelers notebook: Less talk, more work is Tomlin’s theme
7. ‘We did it!’ Peduto tells city, as he defeats Wagner 
8. Neal’s solid play soon could pay off on scoresheet for Penguins
9. Bilik DeFazio leads race on both ballots
10. Senators get vote of confidence
11. Rupert wins Democratic nod to run for sheriff

There are currently no comments for this story.
Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.