Breaking Now: Federal Court Strikes Down DOMA Section 3
This is breaking on Twitter right now. The ruling isn’t out yet but a Federal District Court has struck down Section 3 of DOMA. Lambda Legal explains the court challenge:
May 6, 2010 in Boston, eight married same-sex couples and three widowers were in Federal District Court to hear arguments in their challenge to Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as only between a man and a woman for all purposes under federal law.
We’ll have to wait to read the ruling but if the courts have indeed struck down the definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman this would be a huge step forward. I wonder, would it invalidate all those state constitutional amendments?
I’ll update when we know more.
Here’s a description of the ruling. It sounds like the ruling states that the federal government can’t deny benefits to same sex couples if it is legal in that state:
Judge Joseph Tauro, of U.S. District Court in Boston, issued rulings on two separate cases today.
“This court has determined that it is clearly within the authority of the Commonwealth to recognize same-sex marriages among its residents, and to afford those individuals in same-sex marriages any benefits, rights, and privileges to which they are entitled by virtue of their marital status,” Tauro wrote in the decision for Massachusetts v. Health and Human Services.
“The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state, and, in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment. For that reason, the statute is invalid,” he wrote.
Tags: DOMA, Same Sex Marriage
My understanding is that it leaves the decision up to the states. The court says the Federal Government can’t decide for the states.
Adam B has a good analysis of the decision.
Yes, A1, reading the decision and analysis makes it clear that the decision is up to the states. That’s progress I guess. I wonder what it means for civil unions and the people who say civil unions are marriage in name only?
I think the big thing we’re waiting for is whether the U.S. government will appeal this decision. The logic of the decision (in my non-law studying way) thinks it looks strong because it specifically cites some decisions, like the Loving v Virginia decision.
“The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state, and, in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment. “
Somehow I don’t think this is what the Tenthers had in mind.
My expectation is that the decision does not stand. After all, any state can give its state benefits to anyone it chooses. It simply cannot require any other state to confer those benefits, nor can it confer federal benefits in a manner contrary to federal legislation.
Besides, let’s take the Obama Administration argument regarding the Arizona law and apply it here — by legislating on teh matter, the Federal Government has preempted state action on the entire matter.
What do you guess are the odds that Obama, the self-proclaimed “fierce advocate” for equal rights for gays and lesbians, appeals the ruling?
I’d say 9 to 1 he appeals.