Massachusetts judge finds key section based on 'irrational prejudice' by Mike Andrew - SGN Staff Writer

In two stunning decisions on July 8, Federal Judge Joseph Tauro of the District of Massachusetts ruled that a key section of the federal DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) is unconstitutional.

In Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, Tauro ruled that Section 3 of DOMA violates the Equal Protection clause of the 5th Amendment.

In Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Health and Human Services, he ruled that Section 3 of DOMA also violates the 10th Amendment by usurping the rights of states to regulate marriage.

The two cases were argued separately in May this year.

If the respective federal agencies decide to appeal Tauro's decisions - as they are likely to do - the cases will go to the First Circuit Court of Appeals and may ultimately go to the Supreme Court.

Gill v. OPM

Gill v. OPM was filed by GLAD (Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders) on behalf of eight same-sex couples and three surviving partners living in Massachusetts who were denied federal benefits available to married spouses.

In his decision in Gill, Tauro found that "the government's proffered rationales, past and current, are without 'footing in the realities of the subject addressed by [DOMA].'

"And 'when the proffered rationales for a law are clearly and manifestly implausible, a reviewing court may infer that animus is the only explicable basis. [Because] animus alone cannot constitute a legitimate government interest,' this court finds that DOMA lacks a rational basis to support it."

Lacking any rational basis to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples, Tauro said, DOMA can only be based on irrational prejudice against same-sex couples.

"As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution," he concluded.

Tauro also demolished four separate arguments that Congress had a legitimate interest in intervening in the definition of marriage to favor opposite-sex couples.

"What remains, therefore, is the possibility that Congress sought to deny recognition to same-sex marriages in order to make heterosexual marriage appear more valuable or desirable," he wrote in his decision.

"But to the extent that this was the goal, Congress has achieved it 'only by punishing same-sex couples who exercise their rights under state law.' And this the Constitution does not permit."

Then, turning to U.S. Supreme Court decisions striking down sodomy laws and discriminatory state constitutional provisions, Tauro rejected the idea that Congress may intervene to defend its conception of public morals.

"Neither does the Constitution allow Congress to sustain DOMA by reference to the objective of defending traditional notions of morality," he wrote.

"As the Supreme Court made abundantly clear in Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans, 'the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law....'"

Massachusetts v. HHS Massachusetts v. HHS was brought by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley to defend the right of her state to grant permission for same-sex marriages.

In his decision to grant summary judgment to Massachusetts, Tauro first reviewed several state programs, including the MassHealth medical insurance program, where DOMA-based restrictions on federal spending impact citizens of Massachusetts.

Tauro then said his reasoning in the Gill decision should also apply to Massachusetts v. HHS.

"In the companion case, Gill et al. v. Office of Pers. Mgmt. et al., No. 09-cv-10309-JLT (D. Mass. July 8, 2010) (Tauro, J.), this court held that DOMA violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. & That analysis, which this court will not reiterate here, is equally applicable in this case."

On that basis, Tauro ruled that in passing DOMA Congress had created a situation that leads the state of Massachusetts to violate the rights of its own citizens.

"Accordingly, this court finds that DOMA induces the Commonwealth to violate the equal protection rights of its citizens.

"And so, as DOMA imposes an unconstitutional condition on the receipt of federal funding, this court finds that the statute contravenes a well-established restriction on the exercise of Congress' spending power. Because the government insists that DOMA is founded in this federal power and no other, this court finds that Congress has exceeded the scope of its authority."

Because Congress exceeded its authority, Tauro said, they violated the 10th Amendment.

"That DOMA plainly intrudes on a core area of state sovereignty - the ability to define the marital status of its citizens - also convinces this court that the statute violates the Tenth Amendment."

Ironically, the 10th Amendment - which states simply "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" - has historically been used by right-wingers to challenge federal civil rights laws.

Section 3 of DOMA and why it's important

Section 3 of DOMA applies to the federal government only.

It overrides a state's decision that a same-sex couple is legally married and says that they are not married for purposes of all federal laws and programs, even though the federal government has historically deferred to state definitions of marital status.

Under DOMA Section 3, "the word 'marriage' means only the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

Therefore DOMA requires all federal departments and agencies to disregard valid state-licensed marriages of same-sex couples, but not other married couples. Only married same-sex couples are denied rights, protections, and responsibilities associated with marriage at the federal level.

DOMA Section 3 deprives LGBT families of federal economic safety nets for married families - Social Security survivor benefits, for example - to the detriment of those couples and their children or other dependents.

Section 3 of DOMA does not involve the Full Faith and Credit clause of the U.S. Constitution, which requires individual states to recognize legally binding actions of other states. Therefore the portion of DOMA allowing states to disregard legal same-sex marriages conducted in other states would remain in force even if Tauro's decisions are upheld on appeal.

Reaction to the decisions

"Today the Court simply affirmed that our country won't tolerate second-class marriages," says Mary Bonauto, GLAD's civil rights project director, who argued the case.

"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. This ruling will make a real difference for countless families in Massachusetts."

"With today's decisions, the federal court orders that the heavy hand of the U.S. government must be lifted off the scales of justice, so all legally married people - Gay and straight alike - can receive the same treatment under U.S. law and in federal benefit programs," said Jennifer Pizer, national marriage project director for Lambda Legal.

"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 HRC 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."

 Share on Facebook

Share on MySpace!

    Share on Delicious

Share on StumbleUpon!