Last week the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York became the second federal appeals court to rule that Congress violated the Constitution when it limited the definition of “marriage” in federal law to the union of a man and a woman.

The decision, which invalidates part of the Defense of Marriage Act, is a heartening one that should be affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Some advocates of marriage equality, however, worry that the decision, in a sense, might be too favorable. What concerns them, from a pragmatic perspective, is a finding by the appeals court that gays and lesbians constitute a “suspect class” — a politically marginalized group, like racial minorities, women and some others, that requires special protection under the law.

Under long-standing Supreme Court precedent, laws that disadvantage those groups must be subjected to “heightened scrutiny” by the courts in determining whether they violate equal protection of the laws.

In the DOMA case, the 2nd Circuit concluded not only that gays have been subjected to discrimination — including, in the past, the criminalization of homosexual conduct — but also that they lack the political power necessary to protect themselves from “discrimination at the hands of the majoritarian political process.”

That seems self-evident to us. Court decisions striking down laws that disadvantage gays, however, have steered clear of declaring them a suspect class.

Changes in public attitudes about homosexuality are beginning to be reflected in the political process.

Still, prejudice persists, and the Supreme Court must accord to gays and lesbians the same solicitude it extends to other groups that have retained a special status in the law even as they have increased their participation in politics.

— Los Angeles Times, Oct. 20

Augusta and Waterville news

Get news and events from your towns in your inbox every Friday.


  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.