By Brody Levesque | BOSTON. MA -- The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston ruled Thursday morning that a critical component of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman, discriminates against married same-sex couples by denying them federal benefits.
The appellate justices agreed with a U. S. District court judge's ruling in 2010 who wrote that the law is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define marriage and denies married gay couples federal benefits given to heterosexual married couples, including the ability to file joint tax returns. The appellate court didn't rule on the law's other provision, which said states without same-sex marriage cannot be forced to recognize gay unions performed in other states.
The decision by a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v. United States, is the first instance of a federal appellate court striking down any portion of the 1996 law.
Judge Michael Boudin issued the ruling writing:
[M]any Americans believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and most Americans live in states where that is the law today. One virtue of federalism is that it permits this diversity of governance based on local choice, but this applies as well to the states that have chosen to legalize same-sex marriage. Under current Supreme Court authority, Congress' denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married in Massachusetts has not been adequately supported by any permissible federal interest.
Boudin also noted that since "U. S. Supreme Court review of DOMA is highly likely," the First Circuit court stayed implementation of its decision pending expected appeals to the Supreme Court.
When asked by reporters about today's action by the court, White House press secretary Jay Carney said, "There's no question that this is in concert with the president's views."
Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley said,
Today’s landmark ruling makes clear once again that DOMA is a discriminatory law for which there is no justification.
It is unconstitutional for the federal government to create a system of first- and second-class marriages, and it does harm to families in Massachusetts every day.
All Massachusetts couples should be afforded the same rights and protections under the law, and we hope that this decision will be the final step toward ensuring that equality for all.
The sentiments expressed by AG Coakley were in concert with a statement from Lambda Legal:
We are thrilled that another court- this time, the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit - has ruled that it is unconstitutional to deny respect to the marriages of lesbian and gay couples.
The so-called Defense of Marriage Act is being challenged in multiple cases and it won't be long before that bad law is gone for good.
We congratulate our colleagues at Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) and the State of Massachusetts for achieving this wonderful victory.
Posts
1 comments:
Frankly, I don't see it as a great 'win' at all. All it is doing is supporting the right of individuals to have equal protection under federal law IF it is legal in their state. The patchwork of laws and regulations throughout the land, state by state and even city by city, shows that there is really no protection at all if the state itself is discriminatory.
Worse, they didn't address the critical issue of one state not recognizing the legal marriage of two people in another state. That means you can be married in one state, change to single in the next, and maybe be considered civil union in another. Can you just imagine the outcry if that kind of stupidity were to be carried forward to heterosexual marriages?
Post a Comment