Litigation

Gay Marriage Ruling ?Long Overdue?

By Peter Hardin

When he found a federal ban on gay marriage to be unconstitutional, a U.S. district judge delivered an outcome that “is long overdue,” a New York Times editorial asserted.

Judge Joseph Tauro issued rulings (see Gavel Grab) supporting gay couples’ rights in two challenges brought to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which declares that marriage is between a man and a woman. The Times editorial questioned one of the legal routes used by the judge to reach a decision, but applauded the other.

When the judge said Congress had gone too far and infringed on a state’s right to regulate marriage, it did “not appear to be a legitimate basis for overturning the act,” the editorial said. But Judge Tauro “made a better argument” when he ruled that Congress’s definition of marriage violated equal protection rights in the Constitution, it said.

Under the federal law,  married gay couples (in states where their union is permitted) have been denied a mix of federal benefits provided to heterosexual married couples, including health insurance and the benefits of filing joint tax returns, the Associated Press reported.

For now, Judge Tauro’s ruling applies only to Massachusetts, which is one of five states that permit same-sex marriage. But supporters of gay marriage would like to see other states bring challenges to DOMA. In addition, liberal House Democrats are pushing for action on a bill that would repeal DOMA, according to a CQPolitics.com article.

The White House declined to say whether it planned to appeal Judge Tauro’s ruling.

A news analysis in the New York Times, meanwhile, said reaction to the decision from groups working to bolster states’ rights showed division among them.

Full post as published by The Gavel on July 12, 2010 (boomark / email).