In two separate rulings last week, a federal judge in Massachusetts struck down a significant portion of the federal ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional.
U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro ruled last Thursday that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act — which forbids the federal government from recognizing any unions outside of those between one man and one woman in any way that would cost it money, such as through the tax breaks and benefits available to heterosexual couples — is unconstitutional in that it usurped the power of the states to define marriage, and that it also violates same-sex couples’ equal-protection rights.
The states’-rights portion of the ruling was handed down in the challenge brought by the state of Massachusetts, the first jurisdiction in the country to legalize marriage equality in 2004.
“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, calling marriage laws “an essential element of state power” that predates the American Revolution. “The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state.”
The equal-protection finding was delivered in a suit filed by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders on behalf of several same-sex couples.
Tauro wrote that by predicating eligibility for federal benefits on marital status, “the federal government signals 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.”
Tauro said DOMA was motivated by “irrational prejudice,” which “never constitutes a legitimate government interest.”
The state-sovereignty ruling would only apply to Massachusetts and not other jurisdictions where marriage equality is legal, and the second ruling technically only applies to the seven married couples and three widowers involved in the suit who, unless a stay is issued during the expected appeal process, may be able to apply for federal marriage benefits soon.
The Department of Justice said it was reviewing the rulings, and an appeal is expected, although the Obama administration has stated its support for repealing DOMA. An appeal will be heard in First Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, and the case is expected to eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
LGBT activists are hailing the rulings as an important step toward the full repeal of DOMA, which can be further facilitated by the passage of the Respect for Marriage Act currently in Congress.
“We believe this is the first of many federal court rulings, coupled with anticipated movement on federal legislation, that will slowly dismantle the system of laws preventing same-sex couples access to the same rights and protections afforded all other people,” said Molly McKay, Marriage Equality USA media director.
Massachusetts attorney general Martha Coakley, who filed the suit on behalf of the state, also welcomed the ruling, calling it “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. It is unconstitutional for the federal government to discriminate, as it does because of DOMA’s restrictive definition of marriage.”
Out Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.) noted that while Tauro’s rulings mark an important step in the fight for marriage equality, that effort still has a long way to go.
“Put simply, his rulings confirm what we already know: There is no legal basis for discrimination against same-sex couples,” she said. “The right of same-sex couples to marry with the same protections, benefits and obligations as straight couples may, ultimately, be decided by the Supreme Court. The long march to full equality is not yet over, but now is a time to rejoice in this victory.”
Jen Colletta can be reached at [email protected].