Boston court: US gay marriage law (DOMA) unconstitutional

[kpete]

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

(05-31) 07:19 PDT BOSTON (AP) --

An appeals court ruled Thursday that a law that denies a host of federal benefits to gay married couples is unconstitutional.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston said the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, discriminates against gay couples.

The law was passed in 1996 at a time when it appeared Hawaii would legalize gay marriage. Since then, many states have instituted their own bans on gay marriage, while eight states have approved it, led by Massachusetts in 2004.

The appeals court agreed with a lower court judge who ruled in 2010 that the law is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define marriage and denies married gay couples federal benefits given to heterosexual married couples, including the ability to file joint tax returns.





Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2012/05/31/national/a071419D60.DTL

---

BREAKING: TWO REPUBLICAN JUDGES DECLARE DOMA UNCONSTITUTIONAL | A three judge panel of The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit just handed down a decision declaring the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. Notably, the panel included Judges Juan Torruella and Michael Boudin, both of whom are Republican appointees. Judge Boudin, who authored the opinion, is one of the most highly regarded judges in the country; he frequently sends his former law clerks to clerk for Supreme Court justices. More analysis of his opinion will follow shortly.
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/10-2204P-01A.pdf
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/05/31/492859/breaking-two-republican-judges-declare-doma-unconstitutional/

another link:
http://www.startribune.com/nation/155926735.html

[HockeyMom]

1. If the SC ruled DOMA unconstitutional.

wouldn't that also strike down all those state bans on gay marriage? Just like the states interracial marriage bans, and even states sodomy laws?

[Fearless]

3. If the SJC did, then yes it could.

There are ways they can cop out on it though. We'll see...

[frazzled]

8. Short answer: no. That is a different case

This decision only deems unconstitutional the provision in the DOMA law that prohibits the federal government from granting the federal benefits of marriage (e.g., filing a joint federal tax return) to couples who were LEGALLY married in a state that permits same sex marriages.

The rest is still up for grabs. To wit:

The court didn't rule on the law's more politically combustible provision, which said states without same-sex marriage cannot be forced to recognize gay unions performed in states where it's legal. It also wasn't asked to address whether gay couples have a constitutional right to marry.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/31/doma-unconstitutional-ruling-appeals-court-boston_n_1559031.html

[ruggerson]

20. No

Last edited Thu May 31, 2012, 09:54 PM - Edit history (1)

What it would do is invalidate one part of DOMA, obviously, which would mean:

Any couple that is married in a state where such marriages are legal, would immediately receive all the FEDERAL rights and benefits and responsibilities that accrue from marriage.

On edit: after reading the ruling, it would appear to be fairly narrow in that it doesn't strike down the other section of DOMA, having to do with the full faith and credit clause.

However, there is also the chance that Justice Kennedy could use this case or the prop 8 case to team up with the liberal wing and craft a broad based Loving-like decision which would have the remedies you mention.

[Happyhippychick]

2. Huge news ladies and gentlemen, huge news.

[OVERPAID01]

12. I love your quote, really direct and profound.

You made me smile today!!!

[Happyhippychick]

21. Thank you, that was kind to say!

[mahatmakanejeeves]

4. Another nail in the coffin.

How many more nails can that coffin take before there's nothing left?

[RKP5637]

5. Excellent!!! n/t

[qb]

6. I bet the wingnuts on the SC are dreading the contortions they'll be in

while trying to pretend bigotry is constitutional.

[OVERPAID01]

11. Read on some freeper blog...

That the Supreme Court should use the bible as a means on the ruling of the Doma law...thought you couldn't quote the bible when ruling on legal issues. The whole separation of church and state thing. Any thoughts?

[RKP5637]

17. If the bigots, haters and racists in this country can make life

miserable they will relentlessly seize every opportunity. Some of these damn fools need to review the fact we have separation of church and state and with damn good reason. Many religions are packed with mindless fools with bigoted narrow minded ways, throwbacks to the dark ages.

[morningfog]

13. The wingnuts will be writing the dissent and I expect it to

be based on a rational basis test. The marriage equality advocates even conceded we would lose under that analysis.

[brooklynite]

7. ...and another day that Mitt Romney won't get to focus on the economy...

...one suspects he'll be asked a lot about his pledge to impose a Constitutional Amendment ban.

[frazzled]

9. Yay; inevitable.

The dominoes are tumbling.

[OVERPAID01]

10. If the clowns in Washington D.C. ...

Decide to make this a constitutional amendment, wouldn't this make the constitution unconstitutional as well? Just a thought!

[Marrah_G]

16. It would make it part of the constitution

[msanthrope]

14. Wow. Boudin's 10th A analysis should be quite a

rrad. This is a good day!

[Marrah_G]

15. ~cheer~

[countryjake]

18. K&R!

[MissMillie]

19. I imagine that the title of the thread is the title of the story

But this isn't a Boston court. It's a Federal Court in Boston.

Great day in the morning!!!! Another step towards marriage equality.

[friendly_iconoclast]

22. K&R. Three cheers for fairness and the Fourteenth Amendment!