Another Small Victory For Equality

In 1996 both houses of Congress overwhelmingly passed a law called the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). To his great shame, President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law. The law really had nothing to do with protecting or defending marriage. What it actually did was institutionalize discrimination against gays and lesbians because it denied them the right to marry or receive any of the normal benefits of marriage. The law strictly defined marriage as being only legal when it happened between a man and a woman.

Since that time Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, California, Massachusetts and the District of Columbia have legalized marriage between same-sex couples (although Prop 8 in California has since rescinded that right). That put these states (and the same-sex marriages they authorized) directly in conflict with the federal law.

In March of 2009, GLAD (Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders) filed suit in federal court on behalf of eight same-sex married couples and three widows. They claimed DOMA violated the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs (and all same-sex married people). In July of 2009, the state of Massachusetts also filed suit in federal court. This suit claimed the federal government had exceeded it's authority by passing DOMA because the authorizing of marriages and the laws governing them was a right reserved to the individual states.

On Thursday, Judge Joseph L. Tauro of the U.S. District Court in Boston issued his decision in both cases simultaneously. He ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in both cases and ruled DOMA was unconstitutional. In the case filed by GLAD, Judge Tauro ruled that DOMA violated the plaintiff's rights under the "due process" and "equal protection" clauses in the Fifth Amendment. In the case filed by Massachusetts, the judge ruled that DOMA violated the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Judge Tauro said in DOMA it was "only sexual orientation that differentiates a married couple entitled to federal marriage-based benefits from one not so entitled" and "the relevant distinction to be drawn is between married individuals and unmarried individuals. To further divide the class of married individuals into those with spouses of the same sex and those with spouses of the opposite sex is to create a distinction without meaning." The judge also said "irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest."

The federal government said it is studying the decision and will decide at a later date whether to appeal or not. Frankly, I don't know why the Obama administration was trying to defend this clearly unconstitutional law in the first place. One of the planks of the platform that candidate Barack Obama ran on was the repeal of DOMA.

The president has done nothing to live up to that campaign promise. In fact, by defending this bad law he was violating that promise. Now it has been done for him by a federal judge. It is time for the president to "man up" and defend the equal rights of all American citizens by refusing to appeal this just decision.

As Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley said, "This is a victory for civil rights." The president should not take this country backwards again by trying to appeal the decision and defend DOMA. It is shameful enough that a Democratic president signed this nonsensical bill into law. It just compounds the wrong for another Democratic president to defend it.