A federal judge in Boston ruled a key part of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional today. Two separate cases were before the district court. In Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, Judge Joseph Tauro ruled “DOMA violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment,” reports Bay Windows. In the other case, Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Health and Human Services, Tauro held that the DOMA definition of marriage (one man and one woman) violates state sovereignty by interfering with the state’s right to define and regulate the marital status of its residents. This ruling, based on the Tenth Amendment, has a certain delicious irony to it, as Rachel Maddow pointed out – the cry of “states’ rights” and the appeal to the Tenth Amendment have long been the province of anti-civil rights crusaders, most famously in a century-long defense of racial segregation.
The rulings can be read here:
Gill v. Office of Personnel Management
The concluding paragraph in Gill:
“In the wake of DOMA, it is only sexual orientation that differentiates a married couple entitled to federal marriage-based benefits from one not so entitled. And this court can conceive of no way in which such a difference might be relevant to the provision of the benefits at issue. By premising eligibility for these benefits on marital status in the first instance, the federal government signals to this court that the relevant distinction to be drawn is between married individuals and unmarried individuals. To further divide the class of married individuals into those with spouses of the same sex and those with spouses of the opposite sex is to create a distinction without meaning. And where, as here, “there is no reason to believe that the disadvantaged class is different, in relevant respects” from a similarly situated class, this court may conclude that it is only irrational prejudice that motivates the challenged classification.149 As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Health and Human Services
The concluding paragraph in the Massachusetts case:
“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. 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.”
[UPDATE: New York Times coverage here.]
Presbyterians move towards blessing same-sex marriages
In addition to the civil rulings in the DOMA case, today also saw a step towards marriage equality in church law. The Presbyterian General Assembly will consider recommendations from committees for the denomination to allow and celebrate same-sex marriages. A vote by the Assembly is expected today or tomorrow. If passed, the Presbyterian Church would become the largest denomination in the U.S. to allow gay marriage.
Additional coverage of the Presbyterian General Assembly is on the More Light Presbyterian blog.
[UPDATE: The Presbyterian General Assembly voted down the marriage equality proposal, opting instead to “study” the issue for the next two years. More here.]