DOMA decisions, demystified

On Thursday, we posted the news that U.S. District Court Judge Joseph L. Tauro ruled in two separate cases that section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional. The cases are a bit confusing (we were confused, too!), so we took some time to break them down.

As far as the implications for NMB, these decisions do not end the boycott. Although these decisions are steps in the right direction, they only strike down one part of this discriminatory legislation.

The DOMA decisions, demystified:
Two separate court cases were brought to the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts:

1. GLAD brought: Gill v. Office of Personnel Management
2. Attorney General of Massachusetts Martha Coakley brought: Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services

Judge Tauro was the presiding judge on both cases and made summary decisions for each.

Gill case decision step-by-step:

Section 3 of DOMA says that the federal government will not recognize same-sex marriages.
Same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, so same-sex couples are part of the legally defined group of married people.
In conferring federal benefits, section 3 of DOMA forces Massachusetts to separate this legally defined group into two distinct classes: same-sex and opposite-sex.
The equal protection principles of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment say that there needs to be legitimate government interest to separate and discriminate against a certain class of citizens. (Note: this case does not debate whether same-sex couples should be included in marriage – in Massachusetts, same-sex couples can already marry).
Judge Tauro ruled that the federal government’s DOMA does not serve legitimate government interest, and is therefore unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment.

Commonwealth case decision step-by-step:

Under the Tenth Amendment, Congress has a history of leaving marriage regulations up to states (other than DOMA). In following precedent, decisions regarding marriage should be left up to States. Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage in 2003.
DOMA splits Massachusetts' class of married people into two classes and this has “a significant negative impact on some state programs.”
Thus, section 3 of DOMA violates Massachusetts’ rights under the Tenth Amendment, and is therefore unconstitutional.

What these cases mean on the ground:

*If upheld as-is, married couples in Massachusetts will gain federal benefits associated with marriage.

*If appealed by Obama administration, then the case goes to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. If we win there, it widens the application of the ruling to include two out of the five states where same-sex marriage is already legal (adds New Hampshire).

*If we win and it is appealed again, then the case goes to the US Supreme Court, where if we win there, it would widen the ruling to include all of the current states that legalize same-sex marriage.

Two interesting notes:

1. Obama administration is in a pickle because it has the duty to defend current law, but it also supports repealing the Defense of Marriage Act. One way that the Obama administration could proceed in our favor is to provide a lackluster defense of the law while appealing the decision all the way to the Supreme Court, therefore broadening the reach of the case. (Do we want to give Obama that much credit?)

2. Though it seems so, the Commonwealth case does NOT bolster the right of states like California to deny marriage equality to same-sex couples. Those state laws that deny same-sex couples the right to marry are still against the federal Equal Protection Clause, which is outside the realm of this case. Read more on page 7 in GLAD's FAQs.

You need to be a member of National Marriage Boycott to add comments!

Join National Marriage Boycott

Comment by Max Coleman on July 13, 2010 at 9:18am: Thank you, Laura, for the detail of this explanation! I had been hearing quite a bit about DOMA on the news but I was a bit confused. This cleared things up ;)