Another thing I’m slow to assess is the decision of the U.S. District Court judge in Boston to declare the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. According to [1] Boston.com On July 8, Judge Joseph Tauro “struck down” the law which passed the Republican-controlled Congress in 1996—and to which Bill Clinton put his signature.

The Boston court is clearly the right venue to talk back to Congress on one of the two major issues which Tauro’s decision apparently addresses: that DOMA violates the rights of the individual states to control their own marriage laws. Massachusetts, afer all, legalized same-gender marriage in 2004.

One of the murkiest swamps in our national legal history are these periodic fights between the federal government and the states over who has jurisdiction on something. The present fight between Arizona and the Obama administration over immigration law is the current issue. The states and the feds have been doing this almost since the founding of the nation, and perhaps it will never all get settled, partly because every few years the control of Congress and the state houses flips back and forth between two political parties that seem to despise each other passionately.

Tauro drew on history in his ruling, writing that the states have set their own marriage since before the American Revolution and that marriage laws were considered “such an essential element of state power” that the subject was even broached at the time of the framing of the Constitution. Tauro noted that laws barring interracial marriage were once at least as contentious as the current battle over gay marriage.But in [2] Loving vs. Virginia (1967), the federal Supreme Court that said its opinion trumps the states’ rights to regulate marriage, and so opened the doors to interracial marriages in a single stroke.John Corvino has [3] an interesting reflection on the Tauro decision, in contrast to some poor assumptions on the part of Roman Catholic Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz, who chairs the U.S. Bishop’s “[4] Ad Hoc Committee for the Defense of Marriage“. (I stand by my remarks about “protecting marriage.” I told a reporter in June 2008 that “if you want to protect marriage protect your marriage. Buy your wife flowers, and listen to her when she talks to you.”)Marriage can no more be “defended” by keeping gay and lesbian couples away from it than a house can be defended from termites with a concrete block wall around it.Anyway, Corvino’s comments include three reasons why Archbishop Kurtz is wrong: ” . . . Third, and perhaps most interesting, there is an emerging social institution of marriage that includes gays. It’s time for the law to catch up to that.Last month I participated in a same-sex wedding for some dear friends. The Presbyterian church hosting the ceremony called it a ‘holy union,’ but just about everyone else called it a wedding—including the grooms’ families. There were tuxedos and champagne and cake and presents and all the other usual markers, including teary-eyed families witnessing solemn vows.The state where this event occurred (Michigan) forbids legal marriage for gays and lesbians. But each groom’s parents have begun referring to their son’s partner as their ‘son-in-law, and everyone around them understands why they do so.It’s not a legal reality. But it is a personal and social one.”Given the rejection of same-sex marriage by the Presbyterian assembly on July 9, I found Corvino’s personal observation of the Presbyterian “holy union” to be very compelling. Neither church delegates nor a partisan, sharply-divided Congress, can hold back the tides of change.But of course, Tauro’s decision could itself wind up before The Supremes, who have been pretty good at slowing the tides.

—Pastor Dan Hooper