The federal law banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define the institution and therefore denies married gay couples some federal benefits, a federal judge ruled Thursday in Boston.
U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro ruled in favor of gay couples' rights in two separate challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, a 1996 law that the Obama administration has argued for repealing. The rulings apply to Massachusetts but could have broader implications if they're upheld on appeal.
The state had argued the law denied benefits such as Medicaid to gay married couples in Massachusetts, where same-sex unions have been legal since 2004.
Judge Tauro said that DOMA infringes on each state's individual individual right to define marriage for itself, a tenth amendment issue. As I understand it, DOMA says that no other state has to recognize the gay marriage recognized in another state. I'm not sure how this applies but you can bet this will be appealed. Here's part of a statement recently released by the pro traditional marriage group American Values.
Yesterday, a federal judge in Boston invalidated a significant portion of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act that covers federal benefits for same-sex couples. Sadly, this day seemed inevitable. For years, the militant homosexual movement has relied on unelected liberal activists in the courts to force its morality on the overwhelming majority of the public; to impose results that could not pass in elected legislatures.
Many expect this case, and a similar lawsuit in California, to end up before the Supreme Court. It is one more example of why elections are so important and why men and women of faith must be engaged. The politicians we elect to office nominate and confirm the judges who sit on our federal courts, including the Supreme Court.
This will be sure to be appealed and soon should be in front of the Supreme Court.