|
The Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutionally denies federalbenefits to married gay couples, a federal appeals court ruledThursday, a landmark ruling all but certain to wind up before theU.S. Supreme Court. In its unanimous decision, the three-judge panel of the 1st U.S.Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston said DOMA, the 1996 law thatdefines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, deprives gaycouples of the rights and privileges granted to heterosexualcouples. The court didn't rule on the law's more politically combustibleprovision, which declares states without same-sex marriage cannotbe forced to recognize gay unions performed in states where it'slegal. It also wasn't asked to address whether gay couples have aconstitutional right to marry. The law was passed at a time when it appeared Hawaii would legalizegay marriage. Since then, many states have instituted their ownbans on gay marriage, while eight states have approved it, led byMassachusetts in 2004. The court, the first federal appeals panel to deem the benefitssection of the law unconstitutional, agreed with a lower leveljudge who ruled in 2010 that the law interferes with the right of astate to define marriage and denies married gay couples federalbenefits given to heterosexual married couples, including theability to file joint tax returns. Enforcement awaits Supreme Court ruling The 1st Circuit said its ruling wouldn't be enforced until the U.S.Supreme Court decides the case, meaning that same-sex marriedcouples will not be eligible to receive the economic benefitsdenied by DOMA until the high court rules. That's because theruling only applies to states within the circuit, includingMassachusetts, Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire and Puerto Rico. Only the Supreme Court has the final say in deciding whether a lawpassed by Congress is unconstitutional. Although most Americans live in states where the law still is thatmarriage can only be the union of a man and a woman, the power todefine marriage had always been left to the individual statesbefore Congress passed DOMA, the appeals court said in its ruling. "One virtue of federalism is that it permits this diversity ofgovernance based on local choice, but this applies as well to thestates that have chosen to legalize same-sex marriage," JudgeMichael Boudin wrote for the court. "Under current Supreme Courtauthority, Congress' denial of federal benefits to same-sex coupleslawfully married in Massachusetts has not been adequately supportedby any permissible federal interest." During arguments before the court last month, a lawyer for gaymarried couples said the law amounts to "across-the-boarddisrespect." The couples argued that the power to define andregulate marriage had been left to the states for more than 200years before Congress passed DOMA. An attorney defending the law argued that Congress had a rationalbasis for passing it in 1996, when opponents worried that stateswould be forced to recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere. Thegroup said Congress wanted to preserve a traditional and uniformdefinition of marriage and has the power to define terms used tofederal statutes to distribute federal benefits. States pass own laws Since DOMA was passed in 1996, many states have instituted theirown bans on gay marriage, while eight states have approved it,including Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Iowa, NewHampshire, Vermont, Maryland, Washington and the District ofColumbia. Maryland and Washington's laws are not yet in effect andmay be subject to referendums. President Barack Obama, who said two weeks ago he personally backedgay marriage, announced last year the federal Department of Justicewould no longer defend the constitutionality of the law. Afterthat, House Speaker John Boehner convened the Bipartisan LegalAdvisory Group to defend it. The legal group argued the case beforethe appeals court. Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the Boston-based legalgroup that brought one of the lawsuits on behalf of gay marriedcouples, said the law takes one group of legally married people andtreats them as "a different class" by making them ineligible forbenefits given to other married couples. "We've been working on this issue for so many years, and for thecourt to acknowledge that yes, same-sex couples are legallymarried, just as any other couple, is fantastic and extraordinary,"said Lee Swislow, GLAD's executive director. Two of the three judges who decided the case Thursday wereappointees by Republican presidents, while the other was aDemocratic appointee. Boudin was appointed by George H.W. Bush,while Judge Juan Torruella was appointed by Ronald Reagan. ChiefJudge Sandra Lynch is an appointee of Bill Clinton. The e-commerce company in China offers quality products such as Structural Blind Rivet Manufacturer , China Multigrip Rivet, and more. For more , please visit Stainless Steel Blind Rivet today!
Related Articles -
Structural Blind Rivet Manufacturer, China Multigrip Rivet,
|
