Federal judge: DOMA is unconstitutional
0A federal judge in Boston on Thursday, July 8, found a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.
Judge Joseph L. Tauro ruled DOMA interferes with a state's -in this case Massachusetts'-ability to determine who can get married.
"Having determined that DOMA is not rooted in the Spending Clause, however, this court stands convinced that the authority to regulate marital status is a sovereign attribute of statehood," ruled Tauro.
Tauro also ruled DOMA violates the Constitution's equal protection clause; and those who challenged the law are entitled to the same benefits and protections heterosexual married couples receive under federal law.
"Today the court simply affirmed that our country won't tolerate second-class marriages," said Mary Bonauto, civil rights project director for the Boston-based Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders. "I'm pleased that Judge Tauro recognized that married same-sex couples and surviving spouses have been seriously harmed by DOMA and the plaintiffs deserve the same opportunities to care and provide for each other and for their children that other families enjoy. This ruling will make a real difference for countless families in Massachusetts."
GLAD filed Gill et al vs. Office of Personnel Management et al in March 2009 on behalf of seven gay and lesbian couples who married in Massachusetts and three widowers. The organization argued Section 3 of DOMA violated the Equal Protection Clause with regard to federal income tax, Social Security and other benefits afforded to spouses of federal employees and retirees. GLAD also cited the issuance of passports, but this claim became moot after the State Department amended its policy last year.
"I am thrilled that my family will now be treated in the same way as those of my married co-workers at the post office,? said plaintiff Nancy Gill, who challenged Section 3 along with her spouse Marcelle Letourneau. "Marcelle and I married out of love and commitment to each other first and foremost, but federal recognition of our marriage means that we'll have equal access to important protections for our two children and for ourselves.?
Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley also applauded the decision.
"Today's landmark decision is an important step toward achieving equality for all married couples in Massachusetts and assuring that all of our citizens enjoy the same rights and protections under our Constitution," she said in a statement.
Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, agreed.
"Today's decision is a confirmation of what every lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender American knows to be a basic truth - we, and our families, are equal," he said. "This is an important step forward, but there is a long path ahead before we see this discriminatory law consigned to the dustbin of history."
The Justice Department is expected to announce within 60 days whether it will appeal the decision.