Court: Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional for denying same-sex married couples federal benefits
Two women hold hands in protest of the recently passed Constitutional Amendment One in the North Carolina primary May 14, 2012, in Raleigh, N.C. / Getty Images
Updated at 2:11 p.m. ET
(CBS/AP) BOSTON - A federal appeals court Thursday declared that the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutionally denies federal benefits to married same-sex couples, a groundbreaking ruling all but certain to wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.
In its unanimous decision, the three-judge panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston said the 1996 law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman deprives same-sex couples of the rights and privileges granted to heterosexual couples.
The court didn't rule on the law's more politically combustible provision, which said states without same-sex marriage cannot be forced to recognize same-sex unions performed in states where it's legal. It also wasn't asked to address whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.
CBS News senior legal analyst Andrew Cohen said the Supreme Court could take up the case as early as its next term, which usually begins in October.
"This is a big deal," said Cohen. "It's the first federal appeals court to strike down the federal law, and it did so unanimously with two Republican appointees ruling that the statute unconstitutionally violates the equal protection rights of same-sex couples."
ACLU challenges Ill. same-sex marriage ban
Colin Powell backs same-sex marriage
Pacquiao jabs Obama on same-sex marriage stance
The law was passed at a time when it appeared Hawaii would legalize same-sex marriage. Since then, many states have instituted their own bans on same-sex marriage, while eight states have approved it, led by Massachusetts in 2004.
The court, the first federal appeals panel to deem the benefits section of the law unconstitutional, agreed with a lower court judge who ruled in 2010 that the law interferes with the right of a state to define marriage and denies married same-sex couples federal benefits given to heterosexual married couples, including the ability to file joint tax returns.
"For me, it's more just about having equality and not having a system of first- and second-class marriages," said plaintiff Jonathan Knight, 32, a financial associate at Harvard Medical School who married Marlin Nabors in 2006.
"I think we can do better, as a country, than that," Knight said.
Knight said DOMA costs the couple an extra $1,000 a year because they cannot file a joint federal tax return.
Opponents of same-sex marriage blasted the decision.
"This ruling that a state can mandate to the federal government the definition of marriage for the sake of receiving federal benefits, we find really bizarre, rather arrogant, if I may say so," said Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute.
Since DOMA was passed in 1996, many states have instituted their own bans on same-sex marriage, while eight states have approved it, including Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maryland, Washington state and the District of Columbia. Maryland and Washington's laws are not yet in effect and may be subject to referendums.
Last year, President Obama announced the U.S. Department of Justice would no longer defend the constitutionality of the law. After that, House Speaker John Boehner convened the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to defend it. The legal group argued the case before the appeals court.
White House spokesman Jay Carney said the appeals court ruling is "in concert with the president's views." Mr. Obama, who once opposed same-sex marriage, declared his unequivocal personal support on May 9.
After Mr. Obama voiced his backing of same-sex marriage, a CBS News/New York Times poll showed 38 percent of Americans said they believe same-sex couples should be allowed to get married. Twenty-four percent think they should form civil unions. Thirty-three percent are against any legal recognition at all.
Carney wouldn't say whether the government would actively seek to have DOMA overturned if the case goes before the Supreme Court.
"I can't predict what the next steps will be in handling cases of this nature," Carney said.
The ruling was met with approval from Democrats on Capitol Hill.
"When DOMA is ultimately found to be unconstitutional, once and for all, it will right a wrong of our past and we will move closer to ending a fundamental unfairness in our nation," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a statement. "We look forward to the day when we discard this discriminatory law in the dustbin of history and when all of America's families enjoy the blessings of equal protection under the law."
The 1st Circuit said its ruling wouldn't be enforced until the U.S. Supreme Court decides the case, meaning that same-sex married couples will not be eligible to receive the economic benefits denied by DOMA until the high court rules.
That's because the ruling only applies to states within the circuit — Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Maine and New Hampshire — and Puerto Rico. Only the Supreme Court has the final say in deciding whether a law passed by Congress is unconstitutional.
Although most Americans live in states where the law still is that marriage can only be the union of a man and a woman, the power to define marriage had always been left to the individual states before Congress passed DOMA, the appeals court said in its ruling.
"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," Judge Michael Boudin wrote for the court. "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."
- no previous page
- next
1/2
Popular on CBSNews.com
- TWA Flight 800 gets another look 17 years later
- America's endangered historic places 11 Photos
- Reporter Michael Hastings dies at 33
- FBI: No sign of Jimmy Hoffa's body in Detroit suburb
- Taliban: We killed 4 U.S. troops at Afghan air base
- Scientists say shipwreck timber in Lake Michigan centuries old
- Google asks FISA court to lift gag order on NSA requests
- Girl who lost feet in lawnmower gets prosthetics
www.voteisland.com
Should be no benefits for couples or families....period. You want them...you pay for them.
------------by freeamerica31 June 1, 2012 1:26 AM EDT
How about churches and their not paying taxes? You want them, YOU pay for them.
There are all sorts of things we pay taxes on that go to things we don't agree with. Pacifists still have to eat a large share of the defense bill. People with no children have to pay school taxes. And if churches got taxed like the rest of us (excluding of course their charitable services), the rest of us tax bills would be much less.
We dont get to choose what/where are tax money goes to. And basic civil rights is the one thing we should all want to pay towards.
I don't know your personal life firsthand, and can't. I can't say your son suffers these problems from being smart. It's just a guess, but an educated one, from a layman's standpoint; of course, it's obvious I have an interest in the subject. I have read a few books on the topic. I hope all works out in the best-possible scenario, sincerely.
CBS, how about fixing your posting system? Pretty please? We've been begging for a looooong time.
You oddly just seemed to have disappeared last night, I believe it was, just when I was trying to tell you something about what really goes on from my point of view.
-----
I may have gotten it before I was censored. Oddly enough, they didn't boot me. Warning shot across the bow, perhaps?
Remind me of the topic or the general time, and I will look back. Google is good at retaining deleted content for about a day...
The shapes you're talking about are really the displacement of space made by the individual letter's core and jogs. I get what you mean.
---
Yep!
7H15 M3554G3 53RV35 7O PR0V3 H0W 0UR M1ND5 C4N D0 4M4Z1NG 7H1NG5! 1MPR3551V3 7H1NG5! 1N 7H3 B3G1NN1NG 17 WA5 H4RD BU7 N0W, 0N 7H15 LIN3 Y0UR M1ND 1S R34D1NG 17 4U70M471C4LLY W17H 0U7 3V3N 7H1NK1NG 4B0U7 17, B3 PROUD! 0NLY C3R741N P30PL3 C4N R3AD 7H15.
PL3453 F0RW4RD 1F U C4N R34D 7H15.
http://www.microsoft.com/typography/ctfonts/wordrecognition.aspx
is a GREAT start if you want something "chewy" to read. The first two sentences of the "introduction" section pretty much says it all, though.
How about discrimination against single persons who don't receive any benefits or tax breaks that couples and families receive and pay a higher amount in taxes?
----
Personally, I am against all tax breaks (mortgage, children, gambling losses, etc) for people, and especially the tax breaks corporations use. My only exceptions would be orphans and the truly disabled.
In my humble opinion, those times have been some of the best learning times in my life; there have been more than a few of those times, in different circumstances, whether personal life, military, or civilian life.
I learned from them, but didn't enjoy them nor have a desire to re-experience them. From that, I have done my damndest to keep my eyes forward and try to not "drive in the mirrors", as they say on the racetrack.
"We have societal rules, and as long as those rules are made on a rational basis, they are Constitutional."
----------------------------------
We have had many invidious societal rules. For a very long time, it was legal to own other human beings in this country. For a very long time, it was legal to disallow women the right to vote or to work or get an education. For a very long time, it was legal to force the children of poor people to go to work as early as age ten. For a very long time, it was illegal in many states for a white person (whatever that means) to marry a black person (whatever that means). For a long time, it was illegal for department stores to be open on Sunday. For a very long time, it was illegal for liquor stores to be open on Sunday (in fact, in Connecticut it was illegal up to two weeks ago.)
Societal rules are not always right. They are not always constitutional. They just reflect the then current biases of people. But once a spotlight is shined on a gross inequality, it cannot stand for long .
On a legal level, if a statute discriminates and there is a rational police power basis for it (e.g., health and safety of the public), then it is usually accorded reasonable scope and allowed. Not always, but often. But, if the discrimination is of a type that touches protected classes (race, religion, gender-related issues, disability), then the statute receives a higher level of scrutiny, and if it is not determined to be absolutely necessary, then it is unconstitutional. Now DOMA had one purpose and one purpose only, and that was to deny gay and lesbian couples the same benefits that heterosexual couples have. Now that is discrimination for the purpose of discrimination. Of course, it cannot stand.
Should be no benefits for couples or families....period. You want them...you pay for them.
Should be no benefits for couples or families....period. You want them...you pay for them.
------------by freeamerica31 June 1, 2012 1:26 AM EDT
How about churches and their not paying taxes? You want them, YOU pay for them.