Federal judge throws out Florida couple's same-sex marriage suit
By GRAHAM BRINK, Times Staff Writer
Published January 20, 2005
TAMPA - The government has a valid interest in banning same-sex marriages, according to a federal court ruling released Wednesday.
U.S. District Judge James Moody dismissed a lawsuit two Bradenton women brought against former Attorney General John Ashcroft, asking that the U.S. and Florida governments recognize their Massachusetts marriage.
The case was the first federal lawsuit that attempted to force other states, and the federal government, to recognize a marriage that occurred in a state where same-sex marriages are legal.
The Rev. Nancy Wilson, who filed the suit with longtime companion Paula Schoenwether, said they will keep fighting.
"We are disappointed but not shocked," said Wilson, a minister for Metropolitan Community Churches. "We are still married in Massachusetts and in our own hearts and minds."
Wilson and Schoenwether, a couple for 27 years, married in Massachusetts in July. Their lawsuit challenged the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act and a similar law enacted a year later by the Florida Legislature. Both acts define marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman.
The federal act says no state is required to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Florida's law says the state will not recognize same-sex marriages no matter where they were performed.
The lawsuit argued that marriage was a "fundamental right." Denying marriage to same-sex couples was discriminatory, the plaintiffs argued.
The lawsuit based some of its arguments on the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution, which dates to the days when a young nation was reconciling the laws of the colonies. The clause says states should honor the public acts of other states.
Because Massachusetts legally sanctions same-sex marriages, "all the other states should be constitutionally required to uphold the validity of the marriage," the lawsuit stated.
Legal experts argued, though, that the federal courts have made it clear states do not have to acquiesce to everything another state might do.
States can follow their own laws when it comes to public policy. Government lawyers responded to the suit saying that the Defense of Marriage Act creates stable relationships in which biological parents can raise children.
Moody wrote that the government had established a legitimate interest for protecting heterosexual marriages. He also wrote that the Defense of Marriage Act treated men and women equally, and thus is not discriminatory.
As for being forced to recognize Massachusetts' marriage laws, Moody wrote that such a "rigid and literal interpretation of the full faith and credit (clause) would create a license for a single state to create national policy."
"Florida is not required to recognize or apply Massachusetts' same-sex marriage law because it clearly conflicts with Florida's legitimate public policy of opposing same-sex marriage," Moody wrote.
Ellis Rubin, the lawyer for Wilson and Schoenwether, said he would appeal the case to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
"This is a case that will wind up at the Supreme Court," Rubin said. "This was just the first step up the judicial ladder."
Robin Tyler, executive director of the Equality Campaign, called the ruling "archaic."
"For the courts to refuse to recognize that gays and lesbians should be a protected class only gives us more energy to continue this fight for our future generations," Tyler said.
The ruling won praise from some Christian groups. Matt Staver, director of Liberty Counsel in Orlando, applauded the ruling, as did officials with Focus on Family.
"Today we have witnessed a significant victory - for marriage and democracy," Focus on the Family's Tom Minnery told the Associated Press. "Unfortunately, at any time, marriage in any jurisdiction is only one judge away from being ruled unconstitutional."
