A Federal District Court Judge this morning ruled that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act was constitutional. DOMA is designed to defend "the stability and legitimacy of what may reasonably be viewed as the optimal union for procreating and rearing children by both biological parents." Two homosexuals had challenged the law after their application for a marriage license was denied in Orange County, CA.
This is the third time that some aspect of DOMA has been challenged in federal court. I don’t have time at the moment to find the actual decision, so it’s not clear what the exact argument were. But it can be presumed that the judge found a reasonable state interest in protecting marriage. Also, he clearly rejected the obligatory claim that marriage is a fundamental right. Judge Taylor noted that a fundamental right is one "deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition." Obviously the faddish innovation of “gay marriage” does not qualify. Its good to see sound reasoning from the federal bench. Of course, this case will be appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of appeals, so anything is possible.
One fascinating aspect of this case to be seen in the report is the careful orchestration behind the “gay rights” cabal. To “gay rights” activists are quoted as saying that they wish the case had not gone forward at all. It seems that this is not an auspicious time for a federal suit, in light of two previous federal setbacks in the attack upon DOMA. The absolute power of the federal judiciary works both ways, it seems. If they cannot find the right activist courts with the favorably disposed appeals court in the wings, they risk an unfavorable ruling that would set back their agenda.
No mention is made of taking their message to the people and building a consensus that would energize Congress. The reason, of course, is that it was a broad consensus not long ago that led to DOMA’s passage by a vote of 342-67 in the House and 85-14 in the Senate and a subsequent signing by a Democratic president. Yet despite this forceful statement of corporate will, and despite today’s judicial fit of responsibility, the quest for a DOMA constitutional amendment marches onward. It should make us all very nervous that there is a mechanism that a tiny minority can exploit to wipe DOMA from the books.