California Removed As Defendant In Federal Gay Marriage Lawsuit

SANTA ANA, Calif. (AP) -- A judge has agreed to remove the state of California as a defendant in a lawsuit challenging the 1996 law that prevents the U.S. government from recognizing same-sex marriages.

U.S. District Judge David Carter says the state is no longer an appropriate target in the case because the gay couple who brought it got married in California last year before voters approved a ban on same-sex unions.

Carter issued the order Thursday acting on a request from California's attorney general.

The U.S. government remains a defendant. The U.S. Department of Justice is arguing to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act.

The department's position has angered gay rights activists, who see it as a betrayal of President Obama's campaign pledge to work for the act's repeal.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[fern501]

I agree with Matt Carter, and it is also my belief this fight has to go Federal rather state by state as if one counts one year one state same sex marriage will be in 2053...

[Dynamohum]

Whhaaaat?

[Matt Carter]

Relax. I haven't read the decision in question, but this looks pretty non-controversial. Basically, this couple doesn't have standing to challenge California's denial of marriage rights because they are one of the 18,000 couples already married. They do, however, have standing against the feds because they are being denied pretty much all the federal rights that come with that status.

This really is not a huge deal. The aim of this lawsuit appears to be to get a federal determination on the issue of marriage rights under the US Constitution (which, contrary to popular LGBT belief, *is* the right way to do this), and that can still be done with the federal government as a defendant. If we win against the US, we win against California because federal law is supreme over state law where constitutional rights are concerned, unless the state gives MORE rights than the feds. So, the bottom line is that there probably is not much practical effect to this ruling.