Boston court hands same-sex marriage backers big victory

Question of the Day

Is it still considered bad form to talk politics during a social gathering?

View results

A Boston federal appellate court ruled Thursday that the federal law defining marriage as between a man and a woman is unconstitutional, handing gay-marriage proponents their biggest judicial victory to date and driving the issue closer to a Supreme Court showdown.

The three-judge 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel, including two judges appointed by Republicans, stopped short of ruling that any federal ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. Instead, the judges held that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) places an unfair burden on married same-sex couples by denying them equal access to federal benefits and goes beyond the powers of the federal government.

Marriage law is set by states, not the federal government, and “no precedent exists for DOMA’s sweeping general ‘federal’ definition of marriage for all federal statutes and programs,” wrote Judge Michael Boudin.

President Obama recently announced that he had “evolved” to a personal position supporting same-sex marriage, although he stopped short of embracing a constitutional right to gay unions. Congressional Republicans have had to fund their own legal defense of DOMA after Mr. Obama’s Justice Department announced it no longer would defend the law in court.

The Boston court, which upheld a decision by U.S. District Judge Joseph L. Tauro, said it found no “permissible federal interest” to enforce DOMA. But it stayed its decision overturning DOMA, noting that “only the Supreme Court can finally decide this unique case.”

Mr. Obama has said the federal law’s Section 3 is unconstitutional and the Department of Justice has declined to defend it. However, the White House has no plans to pursue a formal repeal of DOMA in Congress, presidential spokesman Jay Carney said Thursday.

The same-sex plaintiffs and their attorneys were elated by the court’s ruling.

“How thrilling this is for us to know that the courts believe in protecting our rights to Social Security benefits, as with all the other married couples in the country,” said Bette Jo Green, who with wife Jo Ann Whitehead are among the seven married couples and three gay widowers who are seeking a repeal of the law in the case of Gill v. Office of Personnel Management.

“We are very happy with this result. I think it is what we have worked a lot of years for and believe it is the correct decision,” said Gary Buseck, legal director of Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD).

But Dale Schowengerdt, an attorney for Alliance Defense Fund, one of dozens of groups defending DOMA, said that in “allowing one state to hold the federal government, and potentially other states, hostage to redefine marriage, the 1st Circuit attempts a bridge too far.”

“The federal government had the authority to step in against polygamy at one time in our nation’s history, and it has the authority to step in against this attempt at marriage redefinition as well,” Mr. Schowengerdt said. DOMA protects marriage “and we trust the U.S. Supreme Court will reverse the 1st Circuit’s erroneous decision.”

“This ruling that a state can mandate to the federal government the definition of marriage for the sake of receiving federal benefits, we find really bizarre, rather arrogant, if I may say so,” said Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, told the Associated Press.

The disputed provision of the law says that, for federal purposes, the terms “marriage” and “spouse” refer to a legal union with one husband and one wife. Another section of DOMA, which holds that states do not have to recognize gay unions approved in other states, is not part of the lawsuit.

GLAD attorney Mary Bonauto argued that the federal government generally respects the marriage laws of the states, but with DOMA, same-sex couples are singled out for sweeping discrimination by the government. “So what we really have here is a classic double-standard,” she said.

Thursday’s ruling also applied to a companion case, Massachusetts v. United States, led by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, a Democrat.

Story Continues →

View Entire Story

© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

About the Author
Cheryl Wetzstein

Cheryl Wetzstein

Cheryl Wetzstein covers family and social issues as a national reporter for The Washington Times. She has been a reporter for three decades, working in New York City and Washington, D.C. Since joining The Washington Times in 1985, she has been a features writer, environmental and consumer affairs reporter, and assistant business editor.

Beginning in 1994, Mrs. Wetzstein worked exclusively ...

Latest Stories

Latest Blog Entries

blog comments powered by Disqus
TWT Video Picks