DOMA ruled unconstitutional by First Circuit Court of Appeals

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

A unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit said the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which was signed by President Clinton and denies federal economic and other benefits for married people from same-sex couples married in states where it is legal, could not be justified under current precedents that protect minorities and other groups from discrimination. Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, federal appeals court declares – The Washington Post:

For 150 years, Circuit Judge Michael Boudin wrote, the “desire to maintain tradition would alone have been justification enough for almost any statute . . . . But Supreme Court decisions in the last fifty years call for closer scrutiny of government action touching upon minority group interests and of federal action in areas of traditional state concern.”

The Obama administration had decided not to defend the act, known as DOMA, because it had concluded that the law was unconstitutional. It was a step along the way in Obama’s “evolution” on same-sex unions. In May, the president said publicly that he supported same-sex marriage but that the issue should be left up to the states.

The judicial panel noted that most Americans live in states that have either passed laws or amended their constitutions to express, as DOMA does, that marriage is legal only if it’s between a man and a woman.

“One virtue of federalism is that it permits this diversity of governance based on local choice, but this applies as well to the states that have chosen to legalize same-sex marriage,” Boudin wrote. “Under current Supreme Court authority, Congress’ denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married in Massachusetts has not been adequately supported by any permissible federal interest.”

The opinion did not address whether other states may be forced to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states where they are legal.

And then they punted:

“We have done our best to discern the direction” of court precedents, the opinion said, “but only the Supreme Court can finally decide this unique case.”