http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/us/09marriage.html?th&emc=th
July 8, 2010
Judge Topples U.S. Rejection of Gay Unions
By ABBY GOODNOUGH and JOHN SCHWARTZ
BOSTON — A federal judge in Massachusetts found Thursday that a law barring the
federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage is unconstitutional,
ruling that gay and lesbian couples deserve the same federal benefits as
heterosexual couples.
Judge Joseph L. Tauro of United States District Court in Boston sided with the
plaintiffs in two separate cases brought by the state attorney general and a
gay rights group.
Although legal experts disagreed over how the rulings would fare on appeal, the
judge’s decisions were nonetheless sure to further inflame the nationwide
debate over same-sex marriage and gay rights.
If the rulings find their way to the Supreme Court and are upheld there, they
will put same-sex marriage within the constitutional realm of protection, just
as interracial marriage has been for decades. Seeking that protection is at the
heart of both the Massachusetts cases and a federal case pending in California
over the legality of that state’s ban on same-sex marriage.
Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, said federal
officials were reviewing the decision and had no further comment. But lawyers
for the plaintiffs said they fully expected the Obama administration to appeal.
An appeal would be heard by the First Circuit, which also includes Rhode
Island, Maine, New Hampshire and Puerto Rico.
In the case brought by Attorney General Martha Coakley, Judge Tauro found that
the 1996 law, known as the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, compels
Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens in order to receive
federal money for certain programs.
The other case, brought by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, focused
more narrowly on equal protection as applied to a handful of federal benefits.
In that case, Judge Tauro agreed that the federal law violated the equal
protection clause of the Constitution by denying benefits to one class of
married couples — gay men and lesbians — but not others.
Neither suit challenged a separate provision of the Defense of Marriage Act
that says states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other
states. But if the cases make their way to the Supreme Court and are upheld,
gay and lesbian couples in states that recognize same-sex marriage will be
eligible for federal benefits that are now granted only to heterosexual married
couples.
“This court has determined that it is clearly within the authority of the
commonwealth to recognize same-sex marriages among its residents, and to afford
those individuals in same-sex marriages any benefits, rights and privileges to
which they are entitled by virtue of their marital status,” Judge Tauro wrote
in the case brought by Ms. Coakley. “The federal government, by enacting and
enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the
state.”
Proponents of gay rights embraced the rulings as legal victories.
“Today the court simply affirmed that our country won’t tolerate second-class
marriages,” said Mary Bonauto, civil rights project director for Gay and
Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, who argued the case. “This ruling will make a
real difference for countless families in Massachusetts.”
Chris Gacek, a senior fellow at the Family Research Council, a leading
conservative group, said he was disappointed by the decision.
“The idea that a court can say that this definition of marriage that’s been
around forever is irrational is mind-boggling,” Mr. Gacek said. “It’s a bad
decision.”
Massachusetts has allowed same-sex couples to marry since 2004, and while more
than 15,000 have done so, they are denied federal benefits like Social Security
survivors’ payments, the right to file taxes jointly and guaranteed leave from
work to care for a sick spouse.
In the Coakley case, the judge held that that federal restrictions on funding
for states that recognize same-sex marriage violates the 10th Amendment, the
part of the Constitution that declares that rights not explicitly granted to
the federal government, or denied to the states, belong to the states.
The Obama administration’s Justice Department was in the position of defending
the Defense of Marriage Act even though Barack Obama had called during the 2008
presidential campaign for repealing it. Scott Simpson, when arguing the case on
behalf of the government in May, opened by acknowledging the administration’s
opposition to the act, but saying he was still obliged to defend its
constitutionality.
“This presidential administration disagrees with DOMA as a matter of policy,”
Mr. Simpson said at the time. “But that does not affect its constitutionality.”
Some constitutional scholars said they were surprised by Judge Tauro’s opinions
in the two cases.
“What an a
