Federal Court Rules DOMA Violates Equal Protection

Source: Metro Weekly

U.S. District Court Judge Jospeh Tauro, appointed to the federal bench in 1972, ruled this afternoon in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, according to a tweet sent from Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, which brought the case. A companion decision in Massachusetts v. U.S. Dep't of Health and Human Services also was issued, according to a GLAD news advisort

Section 3 of DOMA defines "marriage" and "spouse" at the federal level as constituting only opposite-sex couples. It reads:

`In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.'.

More will be forthcoming ...

Read more: http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2010/07/federal-court-rules-doma-viola.html

---

More coming... this is breaking news right now...

YES - one more strike against unfair and unconstitutional discrimination towards GLBT families!

And it violates a whole bunch of other statutes as well, but the Repigs won't ever realize it or admit it.

Unfortunately, this corrupt USSC will likely uphold it since religion and corporations trump both the constitution and the people.

Just incase the claims of "liberal activist judge" comes up:)

http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Joseph_Tauro

Tauro was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the District of Massachusetts for the U.S. Attorney's Office from 1959 to 1960 before entering private practice in Massachusetts until 1971. From 1965 to 1968, Tauro was also Chief Counsel to Massachusetts Governor John Volpe. In 1971, Tauro was nominated by President Richard Nixon to U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts.

Edit to add that Governor John Volp was a republican as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_A._Volpe

Federal judicial career

Tauro was nominated to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts by President Richard Nixon on September 12, 1972 to a seat vacated by Francis Ford. Tauro was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on October 12, 1972 and received commission on October 17, 1972. Tauro served as the Chief Judge of the Court from 1992 to 1999.

http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=107807

http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=107807

In an enormous victory for same-sex marriage, a federal judge in Boston today (Thursday, July 8) ruled, in two separate cases, that a critical part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional.

In one challenge brought by the state of Massachusetts, Judge Joseph Tauro ruled that Congress violated the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when it passed DOMA and took from the states decisions concerning which couples can be considered married. In the other, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, he ruled DOMA violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

In Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Health and Human Services, Tauro considered whether the federal law’s definition of marriage -- one man and one woman -- violates state sovereignty by treating some couples with Massachusetts’ marriage licenses differently than others. In Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), a gay legal group, asked Tauro to consider whether DOMA violates the right of eight same-sex couples to equal protection of the law. Both cases were argued, separately, in May, and the decision released today is a relatively quick turnaround, given that some judges take almost a year to decide cases.

GLAD attorney Mary Bonauto told Tauro that DOMA constitutes a "classic equal protection" violation, by taking one class of married people in Massachusetts and dividing it into two. One class, she noted, gets federal benefits, the other does not. Just as the federal government cannot take the word "person" and say it means only Caucasians or only women, said Bonauto, it should not be able to take the word "marriage" and say it means only heterosexual couples. Bonauto said the government has no reason to withhold the more than 1,000 federal benefits of marriage from same-sex couples, and noted that a House Judiciary Committee report "explicitly stated the purpose of DOMA was to express moral disapproval of homosexuality."


(Of President Nixon's 220 appointees to the Federal Bench, Tauro is the only remaining Judge on active service and not on senior status.)

K&R!!!

:woohoo:

Let's rec this wonderful bit of breaking news all the way to the top 5 greatest!!!!

from Judge Tauro’s decision:

But even if Congress believed at the time of DOMA’s passage that children had the best chance at success if raised jointly by their biological mothers and fathers, a desire to encourage heterosexual couples to procreate and rear their own children more responsibly would not provide a rational basis for denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages. Such denial does nothing to promote stability in heterosexual parenting. Rather, it “prevent(s) children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure,” when afforded equal recognition under federal law.

Moreover, an interest in encouraging responsible procreation plainly cannot provide a rational basis upon which to exclude same-sex marriages from federal recognition because, as Justice Scalia pointed out in his dissent to Lawrence v. Texas, the ability to procreate is not now, nor has it ever been, a precondition to marriage in any state in the country.

Ruling PDF here: http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/2010-07-08-gill-district-court-decision.pdf

That was the Pro Prop 8's closing argument!

...even an idiot like Scalia knows that.

Hopefully, Walker, too, will find it equally implausible if not laughable.

We should be prepared for some pretty terrible blowback politically if marriage equality comes through. A fraction of the rightist Christians will become extremely paranoid in such a manner that makes the worst teacup people look sane.

the Obama DOJ will appeal, or let stand this victory for the GLBT community, our brothers and sisters?

This is huge. k & r

Source: Associated Press

BOSTON — A U.S. judge in Boston has ruled that a federal gay marriage ban is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define marriage.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro on Thursday ruled in favor of gay couples' rights in two separate challenges to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.

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.

The Justice Department argued the federal government has the right to set eligibility requirements for federal benefits — including requiring that those benefits only go to couples in marriages between a man and a woman.

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jZVhxGXCMRA-mJB4JYXiICP3a6jQD9GR3OL01

So, does this mean that the next step is that the Justice department will appeal to the Supreme Court? Does the Justice Department have the right to accept that the law is unconstitutional or can only the Supreme Court rule on that?

If the judge has ruled that a federal marraige ban "interferes with the right of a state to define marriage" then the same argument will later be made for any federal acceptance of gay marriage - and might serve as a basis for the 5 Bush Crime Family appointees on the Supreme Court to oppose marriage equality, despite the obvious 14th Amendment arguments in favor of it.

rights and was upheld as a violation of 10th Amendment - the other case was decided as a violation of the 14th

And then there's Judge Walker's ruling yet to come on Prop 8

There is considerable precedent, including Loving v. Virginia, giving the US Supreme Court the right to overturn bans on certain kinds of marriage, so this case should not be construed to limit the federal courts’ ability to provide for marriage equality.

If a state grants a marriage license to a couple, Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution requires another state to accept it.

:evilgrin:
It's FEDERAL law that protect straights from having their marriages "defined" by some states and not others--how can those laws NOT protect gays, too? The fact that people may not approve of homosexuality for whatever reason just isn't reason enough. A big step in the right direction. CUE THE VONAGE THEME!!!

:woohoo:
rocktivity

I can only assume that if it goes to the Supreme Court, that the Five Activist Hater Judges, will simply
cook up some blah-blah-blah and overturn this decision...or something so that there is no gay marriage.

The Prop 8 defense rested solely on "procreation" as a rational basis for upholding Prop 8 in the Judge Walker courtroom. Antonin Scalia, in his dissent to Lawrence v. Texas stated: "The ability to procreate is not now, nor has it ever been, a precondition to marriage in any state in the country."

aren't legally or socially barred from marriage. Same-sex couples shouldn't be, either.

:headbang:
rocktivity

Will they now stop defending DOMA in court?

thanks for keeping us informed!

Memo to all of the so-called, self-proclaimed "strict constitutionalists" this is a very strict ruling.

Making law abiding, good American citizens a second class group violates the Constitution.

double standards can't stand.

Sorry for the dupe.

:applause:

wonderful to read, wonderful to spell out, wonderful to tack on the wall . . .
but isn't even more wonderful if it's implemented as policy and practiced assiduously?

... once and for all?