Washington Bankruptcy Case Yields DOMA-Friendly Ruling
by Allie Martin, Jody Brown, and Rusty Pugh
August 20, 2004
(AgapePress) - In a precedent-setting case, a federal judge in the state of Washington has upheld the federal Defense of Marriage Act, choosing -- for a change -- to exercise judicial restraint and to interpret the law instead of creating it.
The ruling on Thursday from U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Paul Snyder in Tacoma said the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, is constitutional.
The case arose after two women, Ann and Lee Kandu, were "married" in British Columbia in August 2003. Several months later, they filed a joint petition for bankruptcy in Washington state. But federal law allows joint bankruptcy filings only by a debtor and his or her "spouse." According to DOMA, a "spouse" -- under federal law -- refers "only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."
The Kandus argued that the right to marry, without regard to the genders of the parties involved, is a fundamental right. But Judge Snyder rejected the Kandus' arguments and refused to expand the constitutional protections afforded to traditional marriage to same-sex marriage.
"No federal court...has explicitly recognized that this fundamental right to marry extends to persons of the same sex," the judge wrote, adding that the court must "be extremely cautious before creating on its own a new fundamental right based on what the Supreme Court might decide in the future."
Mat Staver | |
Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel says the ruling has far-reaching implications. "It will be great precedent for other state and federal courts as this issue comes along for further challenges," the attorney says. Staver explains at issue in this case was the definition section of DOMA that says, for purposes of federal law, marriage is the union of one man and one woman."This is the first court so far to ever address any aspect of the federal Defense of Marriage Act," he says, "and so far it's a great victory for marriage as the union of one man and one woman."
Still, Staver predicts similar cases will be common in America's courts until a Federal Marriage Amendment is passed. Pro-family advocate Gary Bauer of the Campaign for Working Families agrees on both counts, noting that the Washington decision is not binding on other courts.
"No doubt it is only a matter of time before homosexual activists find a sympathetic judge who does not feel obligated to show the people's elected representatives any 'deference' whatsoever," Bauer says. "Instead of waiting for that day to come, Congress should act now and pass an amendment to the United States Constitution [which would be] binding at the state and federal level."
As Bauer points out, the U.S. House of Representatives is scheduled to take up the issue of a Federal Marriage Amendment sometime in September.
More Reason for Optimism in Louisiana
Meanwhile, a pro-family advocate says it's good news that a federal judge in Louisiana has refused to block a September 18 vote to amend the state constitution so it protects traditional marriage.
The Bayou State has joined a growing list of states that want the people, and not un-elected federal judges, to decide whether to ban homosexual "marriage." Judge Michael Caldwell's decision means the ballot measure will go forward, even though homosexual activists vow to fight it.
Kathleen Benefield, president of the American Family Association of New Orleans, says sooner or later, those activists must realize that the people do not want marriage redefined.
"What we're seeing here in Louisiana is that homosexual activists have filed a barrage of lawsuits in courts all over the state, trying to stop the constitutional amendment from going on the ballot on September 18," the pro-family activist says. "They are attempting to prevent the people of Louisiana from voting on this issue and having a say in how marriage should be defined in our state."
But Benefield is optimistic those lawsuits will not succeed. "We believe that [the constitutional amendment] will be on the ballot on September 18," she says. "In fact, unless the Louisiana Supreme Court says it won't be on the ballot, it is on the ballot -- so we want people to know that it is still on the ballot [and] we want them to be prepared to go to vote on that date."
Louisiana already has a law stating that marriage is only between a man and a woman, but supporters want the constitutional amendment to protect it from activist federal judges.
