Courts Decision Could Aid in Same-Sex Marriage Fights all Across the Country

By DMITRY RASHNITSOV

(Photo: Courtesy of queertoday.com)

A U.S. judge issued a ruling last week that states that the federal ban on same-sex marriages is unconstitutional because it interferes with a state’s right to define marriage.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro’s ruling after two separate challenges to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA.

“Today the court simply affirmed that our country won’t tolerate second-class marriages,” said Mary Bonauto, civil rights project director for the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders.  “I’m pleased that Judge Tauro recognized that married same-sex couples and surviving spouses have been seriously harmed by DOMA and that the plaintiffs deserve the same opportunities to care and provide for each other and for their children that other families enjoy.”

The State of Massachusetts said 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, saying the act “plainly encroaches” upon the right of

the state to determine marriage.

In a second case, Tauro ruled that the act violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Although his rulings apply only to Massachusetts, they could have broader implications for other states in which same-sex marriage is legal if they are upheld on appeal.

“Today’s decision is a confirmation of what every lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender American knows to be a basic truth – we, and our families, are equal,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “This is an important step forward, but there is a long path ahead before we see this discriminatory law consigned to the dustbin of history.”

Several groups who oppose same-sex marriage said they are not worried about the judge’s decision and believe the rulings will be overturned on appeal.

“It’s not surprising that this judge got it wrong, because a sham defense was put up by the Obama Justice Department,” said Maggie Gallagher, chairman of the National Organization for Marriage, a group vehemently opposed to same-sex marriages.

Congress initially enacted DOMA in 1996 after Hawaii became the first state to legalize same-sex unions. If the law is overturned same-sex couples could argue they qualify for federal marriage benefits, which would have wide-ranging implications in such areas as immigration.

Under federal rules, there is an automatic 14-day stay of judgments in civil cases, so same-sex couples in Massachusetts won’t be able to file for benefits immediately, said Gary Buseck, legal director of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders. If the Justice Department appeals Tauro’s rulings, the court would likely grant a stay while the appeal is pending, he said.

During his campaign President Barack Obama had said repeatedly that he would like to see DOMA, repealed. But the Justice Department has defended the constitutionality of the law, which it is required to do.

Neither Obama, nor his spokespeople or the justice department would comment on the rulings.

Many Obama voters, particularly among gays, will push for the administration not to appeal Tauro’s rulings, said former Assistant Attorney General Robert Raben. But the administration could set a dangerous precedent if it does not continue to defend the law, he said.

“You want the Department of Justice to stop because you won a case; I understand that,” said Raben, who worked at the department during the administration of President Bill Clinton, who signed DOMA into law.

“But you could have a conservative Department of Justice that won’t enforce hate crimes, that won’t enforce employment nondiscrimination acts, that won’t enforce the Ryan White Act, that won’t enforce all kinds of new protections for gays and lesbians because the attorney general doesn’t agree with them. That’s not a regime you want to live in.”

Not only did the judge’s ruling affect same-sex marriage, but it took a broad stance about the type of control the federal government can have over sovereign states.

“The Constitution isn’t about political ideology,” said Michael Boldin, the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center, a group based in Los Angeles. “It’s about liberty, and limiting the government to certain divisive issues — I applaud what I consider a very rare ruling from the judiciary.”

Others, like Steve V. Moon, a software programmer and founder of States-rights.org, a group founded in Utah in 2008, said the judge’s decision was both right and wrong.

“It’s unconstitutional for the federal government to pass laws superseding state authority — and the judge did affirm states’ rights in this area,” he said. “But I personally believe in the sanctity of marriage between a man and woman and support any state passing laws affirming the sanctity of marriage.”