How do you define marriage? After the costly ceremony, exchange of rings and a day full of lifelong memories, what does it really come down to? Some would say spending the rest of your life with the person you love. For others it’s the beginning of the end. But jokes aside, should everyone get to experience marriage and the benefits that come with it if they want, no matter who they choose in a partner?

Earlier this month a federal judge in Massachusetts thought so and ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional. The law was signed in 1996 by President Bill Clinton and banned federal recognition of same sex marriages. Massachusetts has recognized same sex marriages since 2004, but some couples were still being denied federal benefits and decided to take their cases to court.

U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro’s ruling was based on the fact that family law, including defining what constitutes a legal marriage, falls under state’s rights according to the Tenth Amendment. State marriage laws are usually organized around a list of restrictions and vary from state to state. These limitations include being underage or too closely related to the other person (which is why in some states you can marry your cousin and others you can’t. It’s weird but true.) Other restrictions are written into every state law, such as those banning polygamy. Marriage laws have had a long history in falling under state power, but should the federal government have a role in regulating marriage? Some members of Congress have even gone so far as to try to pass an amendment to the Constitution defining marriage between a man and a woman, but have never been successful.

But while some see the decision in Massachusetts as historic, others wonder about its staying power. Part of Tauro’s ruling established a need for state’s rights to define marriage as well as a federal government requirement to regulate family federal programs and benefits to gay couples – two opinions that seem to contradict one another. Although Tauro’s ruling has been praised, many others see the decision being overturned by a higher court in the near future.

So what does this decision mean for gays and lesbians and what does it mean for the future of family law? The Obama administration is now reviewing the ruling to see whether the federal government will file an appeal. Although President Obama is said to disagree with the Defense of Marriage Act, the administration will continue to defend the statute until Congress repeals the law. Although many see the definition of marriage changing in the future, this might not be the way it happens.

Posted by Rachel on July 28, 2010 at 3:57pm.