A federal appeals court struck down a section of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in a unanimous ruling May 31, becoming the first appeals court ever to rule against the federal law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
The three-judge panel of the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston affirmed a lower court’s ruling that DOMA is unconstitutional because it denies federal benefits to same-sex couples in states where they can legally marry.
The ruling, which will be appealed, would force the United States to recognize same-sex “marriages” from the seven states and the District of Columbia where it is legal, and by extension grant federal benefits, such as tax breaks and federal employee spousal insurance, to same-sex couples.
DOMA was passed in 1996 by a bipartisan 84 percent majority of those in Congress and signed by President Clinton. The appeals court ruling did not overrule another major section of DOMA that gives states latitude in defining marriage. That section was not challenged.
Neither did the panel address the issue of whether gay couples have a right to marry. The ruling struck down Section 3 of the act, which defines marriage for federal purposes such as tax benefits.
DOMA limits tax and Social Security benefits to couples in opposite-sex marriages, the court said, and in cases where one partner in a legally recognized same-sex “marriage” is a federal employee, the act prohibits the other partner from receiving provisions for retirement and medical care, which are, “in practice, the main components of the social safety net for vast numbers of Americans.”
Dale Schowengerdt, legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), said society should protect and strengthen traditional marriage rather than undermine it. ADF, a Christian legal group, has worked to defend DOMA.
“In allowing one state to hold the federal government, and potentially other states, hostage to redefine marriage, the First Circuit attempts a bridge too far. Under this rationale, if just one state decided to accept polygamy, the federal government and perhaps other states would be forced to accept it, too,” Schowengerdt said.
“The federal government had the authority to step in against polygaymy at one time in our nation’s history, and it has the authority to step in against this attempt at marriage redefinition as well,” Schowengerdt said, referring to laws Congress enacted against polygamy in the 19th century.
Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, who filed one of the initial lawsuits against DOMA in this case, praised the ruling by the appeals court.
“Today’s landmark ruling makes clear once again that DOMA is a discriminatory law for which there is no justification,” Coakley said. “It is unconstitutional for the federal government to create a system of first- and second-class marriages, and it does harm to families in Massachusetts every day. All Massachusetts couples should be afforded the same rights and protections under the law, and we hope that this decision will be the final step toward ensuring that equality for all.”
This will not be the final step in a decision either way, however. The Circuit Court’s decision will almost certainly be appealed. The U.S. Supreme Court will have to rule ultimately on the consitutionality of this section of DOMA.
Last year the Obama administration decided not to defend DOMA because it believes the law is unconstitutional. President Obama further angered religious conservatives this May when he announced his personal support for same-sex “marriage,” though he said the decision should be left up to each state.
(BP, RNS)
Share with others: