Massachusetts Case a Blow to DOMA

Wow, so the federal courts have found the Tenth Amendment! A federal judge in Massachusetts has ruled against DOMA.

Associated Press Legal Affairs Writer Denise Lavoie reported:

The federal law banning gay 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.

It did not "ban gay marriage" – states were still offering marriage licenses to brideless or groomless couples. It was supposed to prevent the federal government from recognizing neutered marriage licenses, or for one state's neutered marriage licenses to force other states to neuter their marriage laws.

The rulings apply to Massachusetts but could have broader implications if they're upheld on appeal.

We'll see, won’t we?

[Read much more after the jump.]

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.

Say, where does the Constitution assign Medicaid to the federal government in the first place?

Tauro agreed and said the act forces Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens in order to be eligible for federal funding in federal-state partnerships.

Where is it written that a state is required to take federal funding in the first place?

The act "plainly encroaches" upon the right of the state to determine marriage, Tauro said in his ruling on a lawsuit filed by state Attorney General Martha Coakley.

So... all of the states that continue to define marriage as one man+one woman can still do so, and the federal government should stay out of it, right? So – wouldn't this prevent California's Proposition 8 from being struck down by a federal court? Or is this one of those funny one-way walls?

In a ruling in a separate case filed by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, Tauro ruled the act violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

"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 clearly will not permit," Tauro wrote.

It is not necessary to disapprove of homosexual people nor homosexual behavior to affirm that marriage is something between a man and woman. Governments rightly distinguish between actions constantly.

Gill and Marcelle Letourneau married in Massachusetts in 2004 after being together for more than 20 years.

When Gill, a U.S. postal worker, tried to add Letourneau to her family health plan, she was denied. The couple were forced to get separate insurance for Letourneau, who has a medical transcription business at home and does administrative work for the local Visiting Nurse Association.

Didn't Obama already change this by Executive Order? Also, doesn't that state have medical insurance for everyone anyway?

The lawsuit challenges only the portion of the law that prevents the federal government from affording pension and other benefits to same-sex couples.

So, what are the implications, given that only a portion of the law was challenged? Other states are still not required to recognize brideless or groomless couples as married, even if they have a license from Mass.?

An appeal would be considered by the First Circuit, which also includes Rhode Island, Maine and New Hampshire.

Of course, how likely is Obama's DOJ likely to appeal this? And if so, how strongly will they fight for DOMA, given that Obama has expressed his opposition to DOMA? I suppose it depends on whether or not they think they can further aid the neutering of marriage by taking the matter to a higher court – in other words, they are only likely to appeal if they think they will end up losing.

From Reuters (Reporting by Ros Krasny; Editing by John O'Callaghan):

A U.S. district court judge in Massachusetts ruled on Thursday a federal ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of states to define marriage.

Again with "ban".

"The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state, and in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment," Tauro said in his ruling. "For that reason, the statute is invalid."

But don't most weddings and marriages involve "interstate commerce"?

The Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says: "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."

Yes, and it is ignored constantly.

I'm a little fuzzy on what happened with Utah. Was it actually required by the federal government to ban polygamy to become a state, or what there just an "understanding" that polygamy would have to go away for statehood to happen? Seems to me that polygamy would also be a matter of state law, and thus one state could allow one person (say, a federal employee) marry ten others, and all ten of those people would get federal employment benefits as a result.