Gay marriage ruling could have far-reaching impact
A judge's rulings in Massachusetts that the federal law banning gay marriage is unconstitutional could have implications far beyond the state if they're upheld by a higher court after an appeal by the Obama administration, the Associated Press reports.
U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro said the law, the Defense of Marriage Act, interferes with the right of a state to define marriage and therefore denies married gay couples some federal benefits. He ruled Thursday in favor of gay couples' rights in two separate challenges to DOMA, which the administration of President Barack Obama has argued for repealing.
The rulings apply to Massachusetts, but if a higher court with a broader jurisdiction were to hear an appeal and agree with the judge's rulings, their impact would spread, said Boston College professor Kent Greenfield, a constitutional law expert. The rulings might encourage other attorneys general who oppose DOMA to sue to try to knock it down, he said.
"One thing that's going to be really interesting to watch is whether the Obama administration appeals or not," he said.
An appeal would be considered by the First Circuit, which also includes Rhode Island, Maine and New Hampshire.
The Department of Justice didn't immediately say whether it would appeal; it was reviewing the judge's decisions, spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said.
Massachusetts had argued the law denied benefits such as Medicaid to gay married couples in the state, where same-sex unions have been legal since 2004.
The judge agreed and said the law forces Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens to be eligible for federal funding in federal-state partnerships.
The act "plainly encroaches" upon the right of the state to determine marriage, the judge said in his ruling on a lawsuit filed by state Attorney General Martha Coakley. In a ruling in a separate case filed by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, or GLAD, the judge said the act violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.
"Congress undertook this classification for the one purpose that lies entirely outside of legislative bounds, to disadvantage a group of which it disapproves," he wrote. "And such a classification the Constitution clearly will not permit."
One of the plaintiffs in the GLAD lawsuit, Nancy Gill, said she was "thrilled" with the rulings.
"I'm so happy I can't even put it into words," she said.
Gill and Marcelle Letourneau married in Massachusetts in 2004 after being together for more than 20 years.
When Gill, a U.S. postal worker, tried to add Letourneau to her family health plan, she was denied. The couple were forced to get separate insurance for Letourneau, who has a medical transcription business at home and does administrative work for the local Visiting Nurse Association.
Letourneau called the rulings "life-changing."
"I can get on Nancy's insurance," she said. "That's just a huge victory, and it gives us peace of mind."
Coakley called it a "landmark decision" and "an important step toward achieving equality for all married couples in Massachusetts."
The Department of Justice had argued the federal government had the right to set eligibility requirements for federal benefits — including requiring that those benefits go only to couples in marriages between a man and a woman.
Opponents of gay marriage said they were certain the rulings would be overturned on appeal.
Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, called the judge's rulings "judicial activism" and said he was a "rogue judge." Gay marriage advocates will keep pushing their agenda in the courts, she said, but noted voters consistently have rejected gay marriage at the ballot box, including in a recent California vote.
"We can't allow the lowest common denominator states, like Massachusetts, to set standards for the country," Lafferty said.
Tom McClusky, senior vice president of the conservative Family Research Council, said the rulings result in part from "the deliberately weak legal defense of DOMA" that the Obama administration mounted on behalf of the government.
"While the American people have made it unmistakably clear that they want to preserve marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman, liberals and activist judges are not content to let the people decide," McClusky said in a statement.
The law was enacted by Congress in 1996, when it appeared Hawaii would soon legalize same-sex marriage and opponents worried that other states would be forced to recognize such marriages. The lawsuit challenges only the portion of the law that prevents the federal government from affording pension and other benefits to same-sex couples.
Since then, five states and the District of Columbia have legalized gay marriage.
Comments
The judge said, "Irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest."
I don't understand why the far right wingnuts aren't happy. They've been whining about "states rights" since they seceded from the union.
It's a victory for States Rights. They should be happy.
Posted by: Dana | July 9, 2010 2:24 PM
Yes. The clearly unconstitutional DOMA is destined to be overturned in the Supreme Court. Can anyone name another class of citizens who are specifically denied rights by law? An anyone point out another instance in which one State's contract law is trumped by another's? Is not a Massachusetts marriage, for example, routinely acknowledged in Nebraska? Oh...only *certain* Massachusetts marriages? I see.
This ruling is a victory for justice, decency, and the rule of law.
Posted by: BankStreet | July 9, 2010 2:41 PM
Here's a transcript of the decision. I tried to find one easier to read but this seems to be the only one available right now.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34073588/Decision-in-Gill-v-OPM
Posted by: Dana LaRocca | July 9, 2010 3:39 PM
DOMA was made up by nitwits--it will be rescinded and relegated to the dust heap of history. Defense of marriage sounds so pretentious and pompous. Marriage needs defending more from heterosexuals who are decimating it than from homosexuals who want to get married. What are the heterosexuals afraid of? That they won't get their marriage dates at posh venues as easily or quickly if homosexuals want the same venues for marriage or are they terrified that the courts could be more clogged with divorce suits and they won't get their own divorces as expeditiously if homosexuals also filed for divorces in droves? The fears are stupid and irrational--after what heterosexuals have done to marriage it is pretty marvelous that homosexuals believe in the institution. It is a compliment to marriage itself! I hope homosexuals are able to marry all over the world and live in peace like they deserve to.
R Anon
Posted by: Anonymous | July 10, 2010 8:35 PM
Tom McClusky, senior vice president of the conservative Family Research Council was quoted in this post saying:
"While the American people have made it unmistakably clear that they want to preserve marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman, liberals and activist judges are not content to let the people decide," McClusky said in a statement.
What Mr. McClusky says above makes it plain that he is out of touch with the intent of the Constitution. One of the provisions of this beautifully written document is to protect minorities from “the tyranny of the majority.” Think of the consequences of the people voting on every single issue; for instance, we could very well have slavery in the 21st century if enough voters were in favor. Of course, this is an over the top example and is just used as an explanatory device – at least I would HOPE that the majority of voters would not be in favor of slavery in modern times. Recently this type of thinking came to a head with the infamous Proposition 8 (or the California Marriage Protection Act). It is my belief that this issue should have NEVER been put before the voters in the first place as it did indeed lead to a “tyranny of the majority” and we saw what happened as a result – the Mormon Church literally bought off the voters to deny equal rights for gays. I remain baffled as to why gay marriage is even an issue at all. I have been in a very happy so-called “traditional, heterosexual marriage” for over thirty-seven years and I can think of NO TIME when I have ever felt “threatened” over what a gay couple does or does not do. It is a total non-issue to me or my wife.
Posted by: LouisVA | July 11, 2010 11:51 AM
It isnt a matter of being offended. It is a matter of being obedient to God, and encouraging others to do so, including our government. If God is right, which He is, then we cant leave Him out of the governing of our country. To do so leads to more problems for our country, which we are seeing.
Posted by: Clay | July 12, 2010 8:58 AM
Clay,
It IS a matter of being offended. It is an offense against the Consitution to deny couples, married under the laws of one State, recognition of that legal marriage in another state. That is what this case is about, Clay.
Once again, I remind you that we are not living in a theocracy. Your church is guarenteed, under the Constitution, the right to refuse to perform a same-sex marriage. You are personally guarenteed the right to not approve of same-sex marriage. You don't even have to marry your same-sex partner, Clay. It's a free country.
What neither you nor your church is guarenteed is the right to inflict your dogma (your prejudice) on MY courthouse.
By the way, thanks, Louis. As more and more folk understand that Gay neighbors, co-workers, friends, and family members pose no threat and are merely seeking full and equal citizenship, that simple goal may yet be achieved.
Posted by: BankStreet | July 12, 2010 9:29 AM
You are right Clay, it isn't about being offended. In fact you're the only one that mentioned it. It's about justice, equal treatment under the law, It is about the Tenth Amendment.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 12, 2010 9:46 AM
I meant to say threatened instead of offended because of what was said above my post but either works for the point I am trying to make. Thanks.
Posted by: Clay | July 12, 2010 10:50 AM
Your welcome, BankStreet and I am in total agreement with your assessment re the freedoms given us ALL by the Constitution. I have two very close friends that have had a gay relationship for well over 20 years and their wants, needs, and values are no different from mine. "You have nothing to fear but fear itself" out there folks.
Posted by: LouisVA | July 12, 2010 11:13 AM
"Threatened" works for me, too, Clay.
The intrusion of religious dogma into the rights established by the Constitution erodes, reduces, and threatens all our liberties.
Posted by: BankStreet | July 12, 2010 11:41 AM
Clay - God is not interested in our government. The decision to accept and follow him must be voluntary or it is meaningless. What are these problems you claim we are seeing from not following him?
Posted by: ravensfan | July 12, 2010 1:27 PM
Hi Raven,
There are many other religions practiced in our country, not to mention all those horrible secular folks that don't worship anything. Maybe some day down the road we will look more like Europe. Those are the big problems - like kicking God out of our schools and not allowing sectarian prayer at government meetings, etc.
Posted by: LouisVA | July 12, 2010 2:34 PM
Hi Louis,
What some of my more fundamentalist Christian brethren don't understand, or don't want to understand is the point you make that more than one religion is practiced here or even none is some cases. They also seem to equate removing forced prayer in schools and other settings with not being allowed to pray.
Posted by: ravensfan | July 12, 2010 3:17 PM