DOMA ruled unconstitutional

Judge Joseph L. Tauro of United States District Court in Boston says the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. He says that the Federal government cannot cause the state of Massachusetts discriminate it's own citizens by denying gay couples who have married in that state from receiving the same federal benefits that it grants to other married couples.

AP reports:

U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro ruled in favor of gay couples' rights in two separate challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, a 1996 law that the Obama administration has argued for repealing. The rulings apply to Massachusetts but could have broader implications if they're upheld on appeal.

The state had argued the law denied benefits such as Medicaid to gay married couples in Massachusetts, where same-sex unions have been legal since 2004.

Tauro agreed and said the act forces Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens in order to be eligible for federal funding in federal-state partnerships.

The act "plainly encroaches" upon the right of the state to determine marriage, Tauro said in his ruling on a lawsuit filed by state Attorney General Martha Coakley. In a ruling in a separate case filed by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, Tauro ruled the act violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

"Congress undertook this classification for the one purpose that lies entirely outside of legislative bounds, to disadvantage a group of which it disapproves. And such a classification the Constitution clearly will not permit," Tauro wrote.

The New York Times reports:

Judge Joseph L. Tauro of United States District Court in Boston sided with the plaintiffs in two separate cases brought by the state attorney general and a gay rights group.

Although legal experts disagreed over how the rulings would fare on appeal, the judge’s decisions were nonetheless sure to further inflame the nationwide debate over same-sex marriage and gay rights.

If the rulings find their way to the Supreme Court and are upheld there, they will put same-sex marriage within the constitutional realm of protection, just as interracial marriage has been for decades. Seeking that protection is at the heart of both the Massachusetts cases and a federal case pending in California over the legality of that state’s ban on same-sex marriage.

Posted by Andrew Gerns on July 9, 2010 7:15 AM | |
Comments (3)

Drop by drop the stone wears away.

Posted by Ann Fontaine [TypeKey Profile Page] | July 9, 2010 9:22 AM

As far as CIVIL equal rights are concerned, I'm all for it. Just keep that garbage out of the Church.

Posted by Richard Jackson [TypeKey Profile Page] | July 9, 2010 1:08 PM

So the Christ-centered relationship of two people (who happen to be of the same sex) who want to make a life-long commitment in front of the People of God (asking for those people's support IN their commitment) is (in your word) "garbage", Richard?

How very Christ-like of you.

Not.

JC Fisher

Posted by tgflux [TypeKey Profile Page] | July 9, 2010 7:19 PM

Add your comments

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Reminder: At Episcopal Café, we hope to establish an ethic of transparency by requiring all contributors and commentators to make submissions under their real names. For more details see our Feedback Policy.

Advertising Space