DOMA Upheld

Yesterday, a federal judge of Washington (the state of) ruled that DOMA was still valid with federal courts. National Review has the technical ruling (a 30 page pdf) and an article about it.

Judge Snyder was ruling over a bankruptcy case, which was filed by Lee and Ann C. Kandu, a lesbian couple maried in British Columbia. They filed jointly for bankruptcy, shortly after being married, in October 2003. This led into an investigation, and it went to court, with improper joint filing as the main reason.

The first thing that should be noted, especially in cases like this, is that DOMA was not challenged under the full faith and credit clause (nor could it be, due to a marriage in Canada), but that DOMA was purely unconstitutional. The Kandus then have a list of amendments which seem, to me at least, little more than a blind throw to trying to get it deemed unconstitutional rather than anything else.

The most interesting thing about the court's decision is that it has a sentence in there about the judge's personal opinon. Page 26 states, "This Court's personal view that children raised by same-sex couples enjoy benefits possibly different, but equal, to those raised by opposite-sex couples, is not relevant to the Court's ultimate decision. It is within the province of Congress, not the courts, to weigh the evidence and legislate on such issues, unless it can be established that the legislation is not rationally related to a legitimate government end."

On page 27, he doesn't altogether contradict himself, but Snyder admits that DOMA is not perfect, nor could it be, in that it recognizes marriages by childless couples. He admits that in order for it to be perfect, one would have to inquire about the interest of having children in the near future. Me, I'm all for that actually. I think there should be a time limit between marriage and pregnancy or birth (2 years). Pre-existing children with the married couple only count if the children have devolved from both spouses together. If you don't have a child, the marriage should be annulled, simply on the basis of all the DOMAs in the country. At least until gay marriage has full rights.

In this case, it is interesting because Washington State did not recognize the marriage, nor did the federal courts did not recognize the marriage. The marriage was done in a foreign country, and, as such, it does not bring benefits to the couple. There would be no legitimate reason for the couple to think they could legally jointly do anything at this point. That is to say that I agree with the ruling, but not with the law itself. I hope this case does not become a milestone case in the gay marriage issue, as it was a weak construction, having started last year, and should be properly ignored.