Some Commentary on First Circuit Ruling Against DOMA—Part 2

Numbering serially from my Part 1 post, I offer some further observations on the First Circuit ruling:

3.c. The panel’s dismissal of DOMA’s rationales hinges on its heightened standard of “intensified scrutiny.” Even then, the panel’s reasoning is faulty in multiple respects.

For starters, DOMA’s definition of marriage reinforces heterosexual marriage in obvious ways. The traditional male-female nature of marriage reflects the elementary biological reality that only heterosexual intercourse naturally generates children. The institution of marriage exists to maximize the prospect that children will be born and raised in stable and enduring families by the fathers and mothers responsible for their existence. Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would permanently reorient the institution of marriage away from this central mission. Conversely, maintaining the traditional definition of marriage helps to promote that mission.

The panel somehow finds it significant that DOMA “does not increase benefits to opposite-sex couples.” (P. 26.) But given the fact that the federal budget is not unlimited, DOMA’s refusal to extend federal benefits to same-sex couples helps ensure that the government can in fact fulfill its commitments to opposite-sex couples.

The panel purports to address the House of Representatives’ supposed argument that (in the panel’s words) “Congress was entitled to ‘freeze’ the situation and reflect.” But the panel doesn’t fairly present the House’s actual argument: “Congress was justified in proceeding with caution in considering whether to eliminate a criterion—opposite-sex partners—that has been historically regarded as an essential element of marriage.” (See House Brief at 39-42.) Nor does it acknowledge the many Senate floor statements setting forth that rationale.

Indeed, in an apparent effort to minimize the bases for Congress to enact DOMA, the panel opinion simply ignores other rationales set forth in the House brief that were supported by floor statements, including the obvious federal interest in uniform eligibility for federal benefits. (See House Brief at 46-49.)

What this shows (and I could offer plenty of other examples, including the panel’s bizarre and ill-considered suggestion (see pp. 23-24 & n. 8) that Congress should have selectively exempted certain provisions of federal law from DOMA) is that beneath its surface evenhandedness, the panel’s consideration is heavily biased against DOMA.

4. Some have contended that there is a coherent way to strike down DOMA without also striking down the states’ traditional marriage laws. The First Circuit panel, paying lip service to the continuing precedential effect of Baker v. Nelson, purports to take such an approach. But (as I explained in my Part 1 post) it does so only by falsely positing federalism interests that DOMA doesn’t actually implicate. Further, its blithe dismissal of the many rationales for DOMA clearly would bode ill for state marriage laws.

Most Popular

Law & the Courts

Obstruction Confusions

In his Lawfare critique of one of my several columns about the purported obstruction case against President Trump, Gabriel Schoenfeld loses me — as I suspect he will lose others — when he says of himself, “I do not think I am Trump-deranged.” Gabe graciously expresses fondness for me, and the feeling is ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Students’ Anti-Gun Views

Are children innocents or are they leaders? Are teenagers fully autonomous decision-makers, or are they lumps of mental clay, still being molded by unfolding brain development? The Left seems to have a particularly hard time deciding these days. Take, for example, the high-school students from Parkland, ... Read More
PC Culture

Kill Chic

We live in a society in which gratuitous violence is the trademark of video games, movies, and popular music. Kill this, shoot that in repugnant detail becomes a race to the visual and spoken bottom. We have gone from Sam Peckinpah’s realistic portrayal of violent death to a gory ritual of metal ripping ... Read More

Romney Is a Misfit for America

Mitt’s back. The former governor of Massachusetts and occasional native son of Michigan has a new persona: Mr. Utah. He’s going to bring Utah conservatism to the whole Republican party and to the country at large. Wholesome, efficient, industrious, faithful. “Utah has a lot to teach the politicians in ... Read More
Law & the Courts

What the Second Amendment Means Today

The horrifying school massacre in Parkland, Fla., has prompted another national debate about guns. Unfortunately, it seems that these conversations are never terribly constructive — they are too often dominated by screeching extremists on both sides of the aisle and armchair pundits who offer sweeping opinions ... Read More

Fire the FBI Chief

American government is supposed to look and sound like George Washington. What it actually looks and sounds like is Henry Hill from Goodfellas: bad suit, hand out, intoning the eternal mantra: “F*** you, pay me.” American government mostly works by interposition, standing between us, the free people at ... Read More
Film & TV

Black Panther’s Circle of Hype

The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) first infantilizes its audience, then banalizes it, and, finally, controls it through marketing. This commercial strategy, geared toward adolescents of all ages, resembles the Democratic party’s political manipulation of black Americans, targeting that audience through its ... Read More