Last week, President Barack Obama instructed the Department of Justice to stop supporting the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, which defines marriage as being between one man and one woman. Lipscomb political science professors Marc Schwerdt and Dwight Tays shared their opinions on the issue.
Tays, assistant professor of political science, said he thinks the president’s announcement doesn’t necessarily reflect Obama’s personal beliefs; rather, Tays said, it shows his official, political decision on the issue.
“His personal stand is that he does not support same-sex marriages,” Tays said. “But one’s personal stand and official actions at times may be different.”
Some consider the announcement to be a shift from Obama’s 2008 campaign stance on this issue. But Tays and Schwerdt said they think the announcement against DOMA is perfectly in line with his position.
“His position is, I think, consistent with what he has always done,” said Schwerdt, assistant professor of political science and head of the department. “He has always taken a middle-of-the-road approach. He recognizes civil unions, but he doesn’t really want to recognize gay marriage.”
Tays said he doesn’t think the president’s stance on DOMA will have much impact. He said that the act was “really an affirmation of heterosexual marriage.”
“It really does not govern marriage,” Tays said. “It was more a political statement instead of a legal reality.”
Both Tays and Schwerdt said that a federal statement about marriage doesn’t inherently carry great significance because states are most responsible for what happens regarding same-sex marriage.
“I don’t think they’re going to mess with this issue,” Schwerdt said.
He explained that, at this point in time, he thinks the government is less focused on addressing same-sex marriage and instead is concentrating on the economy.
“I don’t see this issue going away but I don’t think it’s as urgent as it was three years ago,” Schwerdt said.
Tays, however, predicted that at some point within the next two or three years the Supreme Court will have to make a decision on this issue.
“You’re going to have a case that, I think, is going to be on the horizon very soon,” Tays said.
Tays, who has taught Constitutional Law for 28 years, said he thinks this issue will eventually be determined by the Constitution’s “full faith and credit clause.” This clause indicates that states must follow the legal precedence set up by other states.
According to Tays, this means that a same-sex couple who is considered married in a state that legalizes gay marriage must be considered married in all other states.
Tays said he thinks that regardless of whether it is the president, state governments or individuals, decisions about same-sex marriage are an issue of morality.
“A question concerning gay rights is rooted in the moral view,” Tays said. “It’s about if something is morally accepted or not. That perspective helps to shape official stands.”