Appeals court rules DOMA unconstitutional

[charminglife]

Is the next step the Supreme Court?

Court: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional
By Denise Lavoie

BOSTON—An appeals court has ruled that the heart of the law that denies a host of federal benefits to same-sex married couples is unconstitutional.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston ruled Thursday that the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, discriminates against married gay couples by denying them federal benefits.

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.

In 2010, a federal judge in Massachusetts declared the heart of the law unconstitutional in two separate lawsuits. The judge found that the law interferes with the right of a state to define marriage.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

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.

During arguments before the court last month, a lawyer for gay married couples said the law amounts to "across-the-board disrespect." The couples argued that the power to define and regulate marriage had been left to the states for more than 200 years before Congress passed DOMA.

An attorney defending the law argued that Congress had a rational basis for passing it in 1996, when opponents worried that states would be forced to recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere. The group said Congress wanted to preserve a traditional and uniform definition of marriage and has the power to define terms used to federal statutes to distribute federal benefits.

Since DOMA was passed in 1996, many states have instituted their own bans on gay marriage, while eight states have approved it, including Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maryland, Washington state and the District of Columbia. Maryland and Washington's laws are not yet in effect and may be subject to referendums.

Last year, President Barack Obama announced the U.S. Department of Justice would no longer defend the constitutionality of the law. After that, House Speaker John Boehner convened the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to defend it.

www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2012/05/31/boston_court_us_gay_marriage_law_unconstitutional/?p1=News_links

[secretlyevil]

They will absolutely push this all the way to the Supreme Court.

But as to the ruling: :drink: :drink: :drink: :drink: :Y: :Y: :Y: :Y:

[ESF]

Of course its unconstitutional. I can't believe it took this long for a court to get that. It was passed in 1996? JHC.

[druidp]

May 31, 2012 9:44:12 GMT -5 secretlyevil said:

But as to the ruling:

Ditto this a million times over.

[twotrue]

But it doesn't mean the SCOTUS will take the case. That's still the big question mark in all of this. Plus based on this sentence "The couples argued that the power to define and regulate marriage had been left to the states for more than 200 years before Congress passed DOMA" I fear we are going to continue looking at this thing as a states' rights issue.

[heyjude]

About. Damn. Time.

[michelebelle]

Woot woot! Just saw this on twitter. So exciting!!

[OscarQ]

I just got the WSJ News Alert on this at 12:42. Way to be on top of it WSJ!

[marie427]

May 31, 2012 10:42:05 GMT -5 twotrue said:

But it doesn't mean the SCOTUS will take the case. That's still the big question mark in all of this. Plus based on this sentence "The couples argued that the power to define and regulate marriage had been left to the states for more than 200 years before Congress passed DOMA" I fear we are going to continue looking at this thing as a states' rights issue.

This is what concerns me too.

In the meantime, I will remain cautiously optimistic about this.

[mnvegas]

:Y: :Y: :Y:

[twotrue]

May 31, 2012 10:43:43 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

May 31, 2012 10:42:05 GMT -5 twotrue said:

But it doesn't mean the SCOTUS will take the case. That's still the big question mark in all of this. Plus based on this sentence "The couples argued that the power to define and regulate marriage had been left to the states for more than 200 years before Congress passed DOMA" I fear we are going to continue looking at this thing as a states' rights issue.

Although I think we can just say that this is why DOMA is unconstitutional. Then we get to the issue of the individual laws the states create and can assess whether they are constitutional.

Baby steps (down the aisle).

Don't get me wrong, I'll take baby steps. Obviously I'm not a lawyer but I always figured the states' rights issues would come down to the Full Faith and Credit Clause and some states not honoring contracts from other states.

[Deleted]

May 31, 2012 12:23:48 GMT -5 twotrue said:

May 31, 2012 10:43:43 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Although I think we can just say that this is why DOMA is unconstitutional. Then we get to the issue of the individual laws the states create and can assess whether they are constitutional.

Baby steps (down the aisle).

Don't get me wrong, I'll take baby steps. Obviously I'm not a lawyer but I always figured the states' rights issues would come down to the Full Faith and Credit Clause and some states not honoring contracts from other states.

But I think you'll wind up with the same result. If it's up to the states to define marriage, and there's no federal law defining it, then I don't think states will be able to get around the full faith & credit clause. So people would then be able to go get married in MA or IA and have it recognized even in AL. I think. I could be wrong.

[eclaires]

May 31, 2012 12:45:04 GMT -5 @angryharpy said:

May 31, 2012 12:23:48 GMT -5 twotrue said:

Don't get me wrong, I'll take baby steps. Obviously I'm not a lawyer but I always figured the states' rights issues would come down to the Full Faith and Credit Clause and some states not honoring contracts from other states.

But I think you'll wind up with the same result. If it's up to the states to define marriage, and there's no federal law defining it, then I don't think states will be able to get around the full faith & credit clause. So people would then be able to go get married in MA or IA and have it recognized even in AL. I think. I could be wrong.

This was my thought process as well... I figured w/out DOMA, the full faith and credit clause would have a stronger argument, or something, b/c there would be no federal law on the subject. Right now, it's like DOMA makes it okay for states not to recognize other states allowing same sex marriage despite full faith and credit.

But it's been a long time since I was in law school and my kids have eaten my brain, so I could be wrong.

[dev22]

WOOP!