Skip to Content, Navigation, or Footer.
We inform. You decide.
Monday, December 02, 2024
<p>Austin Nimocks, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, and Danaya Wright, UF law professor, answer questions from the crowd after the "DOMA: Is it Constitutional?" debate discussing the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act at the Levin College of Law on Wednesday.</p>

Austin Nimocks, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, and Danaya Wright, UF law professor, answer questions from the crowd after the "DOMA: Is it Constitutional?" debate discussing the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act at the Levin College of Law on Wednesday.

About 200 people came together to listen in on a debate about the federal Defense of Marriage Act at the UF Levin College of Law on Wednesday.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines marriage for the purposes of federal law as the legal union between one man and one woman, and it provides that no state will be required to recognize homosexual marriages performed in other states, according to the news release.

Speakers included Austin Nimocks, senior legal counsel for a group of Christian attorneys called the Alliance Defense Fund, and professor Danaya C. Wright, of the Levin College of Law, who each took a stance on DOMA.

Nimocks favors the legislation, stating that marriage does not belong to a specific religious ideology but rather relates to children and procreation, calling marriage "timeless."

"The thrust of this debate is over the Equal Protection Clause," Nimocks said. "The Equal Protection Clause has never required that different things should be treated the same ... and marriage therefore does not violate that."

Nimocks went on to relate the involvement of federal government in marital matters to the issues of bankruptcy, military and immigration.

"I think there is a solid history and a right and a reason for federal government to take up the right of marriage," Nimocks said.

Wright disagreed.

She stated that marriage is not timeless but rather recent, giving examples from the medieval and classical ages. Wright stated that the binary composition of marriage taking place between male and female is "socially constructed."

"We can't legitimately rely on [marriage] as a matter of law," Wright said.

Wright argued that DOMA violates part of the 10th Amendment, which protects states' rights, and therefore violates the Equal Protection Clause.

"Federal power lies within state power. ... The two are mutually exclusive," Wright stated.

Enjoy what you're reading? Get content from The Alligator delivered to your inbox

Both Wright and Nimocks agreed on one matter by the end of the Q-and-A portion of the debate - there are individual rights that society needs to recognize.

The debate was hosted by OUTLaw: UF Law's Gay & Straight Alliance and the UF Federalist Society.

Austin Nimocks, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, and Danaya Wright, UF law professor, answer questions from the crowd after the "DOMA: Is it Constitutional?" debate discussing the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act at the Levin College of Law on Wednesday.

Support your local paper
Donate Today
The Independent Florida Alligator has been independent of the university since 1971, your donation today could help #SaveStudentNewsrooms. Please consider giving today.

Powered by SNworks Solutions by The State News
All Content © 2024 The Independent Florida Alligator and Campus Communications, Inc.