Good Ruling

The Defense of Marriage Act easily survived its first Constitutional test.

US District Judge James S. Moody disagreed. Moody, an appointee of former president Bill Clinton, sided with outgoing Attorney General John Ashcroft, who had argued in court filings that the government has a legitimate interest in permitting states to ban same-sex marriages, namely to encourage "stable relationships" to raise children with both biological parents. Moody ruled that the law was not discriminatory because it treats men and women equally, and that the government had argued compellingly in favor of allowing marriages to form only between men and women. Moody said he could not declare marriage a "fundamental right," as lawyers for the women had urged him to do. Moody cited past legal cases as establishing states' rights to regulate marriages. "The legislatures of individual states may decide to overturn its precedent and strike down" the law, Moody wrote. "But, until then, this court is constrained to hold [the law] and the Florida statutes . . . constitutionally valid."

This is great news. I've always thought this is a state issue and should be decided by the states. DOMA, if properly interpreted and applied, makes the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA)moot. However, the FMA may return as an issue as long as you have judges willing to overrule the will of the people on this matter (as was the case in Massachusetts).