Fed Judge Rules DOMA Unconstitutional

  A federal judge in Boston has struck down portions of the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional in two separate cases, ruling DOMA interferes with state sovereignty and denies gay married couples, who have been able to legally wed in Massachusetts since 2004, equal protection under the law.
U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro slammed the original motives behind the 1996 passage of DOMA, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman and relieves states from recognizing marriages performed in other states if the union is between persons of the same sex. He wrote:
"Indeed, Congress undertook this classification for the one purpose that lies entirely outside of legislative bounds, to disadvantage a group of which it disapproves. And such a classification, the Constitution will not permit."
One case was brought by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley. She argued, on behalf of the state, that Congress exceeded its legal authority when passing DOMA because it forces the state to discriminate and treat gay married couples differently from straight married couples, denying gay spouses the same federal benefits, like Medicaid coverage.
Judge Tauro agreed, arguing that DOMA interferes with the state's right to define marriage.
The other case was brought by the Boston based gay rights group Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, or GLAD, who argued on behalf of several gay couples and widowers that DOMA tramples on the couples' right to equal protection under the law.
Judge Tauro wrote: "Decidedly, DOMA does not provide for nationwide consistency in the distribution of federal benefits among married couples. Rather it denies to same-sex married couples the federal marriage-based benefits that similarly situated heterosexual couples enjoy."
"Today the Court simply affirmed that our country won’t tolerate second-class marriages," says Mary Bonauto, GLAD’s Civil Rights Project Director. "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."
Kris Mineau, president of the conservative Massachusetts Family Institute, released the following statement, in response to the judge's rulings: "In another blatant example of a judge playing legislator, a Boston-based federal judge has struck down the bipartisan Defense of Marriage Act passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1996. Same-sex marriage activists have tried time and time again to win public approval of their agenda, and they have failed each time. This is why their strategy is to force same-sex 'marriage' through judicial fiat, as they did here in Massachusetts and other states."
While the judge's rulings apply to Massachusetts, likely appeals in the cases could have broader implications and national impact. The U.S. Justice Department is reviewing the decisions. An appeal would first be considered by the First Circuit which serves Massachusetts, Maine, Rhode Island, New Hampshire and Puerto Rico, but further appeals could ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
(from Foxnews.com)