From Twitter 07-08-2010

( Cut to spare the uninterested )

Tweets copied by twittinesis.com

DOMA Decisions

I've been waiting with bated breath for Judge Vaughn Walker's decision (who here knows that I'm talking about? You would if you've been watching the Marriage Trial like I have).

But now we have other news from a couple of cases winding their way through the federal courts in Massachusetts. Federal district court judge Joseph L. Tauro ruled, in two separate cases (Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. HHS and Gill v. OPM), that section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional. :

Yesterday, a federal district judge in Boston declared that the federal ban on recognizing same-sex marriage - as articulated in the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA - is unconstitutional.

The judge, Joseph Tauro, based his decision on the notion that states, not the federal government, have jurisdiction over the definition of marriage. If his decision holds up through appeals - and that's a big if - it would mean that the federal government would likely have to recognize those same-sex marriages already recognized by states, and thus provide benefits like Medicaid to same-sex partners.

To be clear: The decision would not mean that both federal and state governments would have to recognize same-sex marriage nationwide. Instead, it would mandate that the federal government would have to recognize same-sex marriages already recognized by Massachusetts and other states that recognize gay marriage. (The case actually dealt with a specific group of people looking for specific benefits, but the broader implication is that the relevant section of DOMA would fall.)


The case now could move from the district court to the U.S. court of appeals for the first circuit, which includes three other New England states; it could then go to the Supreme Court. Ironically, an appeal to the decision would come from the Justice Department of the Obama administration, which wants to repeal DOMA but must defend it so long as it remains law.

Here's some legal analysis which I think a lay person can follow. It characterizes the two decisions as "big, good and mostly expected news."

Also interesting: In an blog post titled, "Why Teapartiers Should Oppose DOMA," the Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan writes that "The right is hoist on their own federalist petard and will now have to choose whether states' rights or marriage inequality is more important to them."