Judge Rules Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

(AP)  Updated at 5:28 p.m. ET

A U.S. judge in Boston has ruled that a federal gay marriage ban is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define marriage.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro on Thursday ruled in favor of gay couples' rights in two separate challenges to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA.

The state had argued the law denied benefits such as Medicaid to gay married couples in Massachusetts, where same-sex unions have been legal since 2004.

Tauro agreed, and said the act forces Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens.

"The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state, and in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment. For that reason, the statute is invalid," Tauro wrote in a ruling in a lawsuit filed by Attorney General Martha Coakley.

Ruling in a separate case filed by Gays & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, Tauro found that DOMA violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

"We've maintained from the very beginning that there was absolutely no basis for this law treating one class of married Massachusetts couples different from everybody else and the court has recognized that," said Gary Buseck, GLAD's legal director.

The Justice Department argued the federal government has the right to set eligibility requirements for federal benefits - including requiring that those benefits only go to couples in marriages between a man and a woman.

The law was enacted by Congress in 1996 when it appeared Hawaii would soon legalize same-sex marriage and opponents worried that other states would be forced to recognize such marriages. The lawsuit challenges only the portion of the law that prevents the federal government from affording pension and other benefits to same-sex couples.

Since then, five states and the District of Columbia have legalized gay marriage.

More Gay Marriage Coverage

Hawaii Gov. Vetoes Same-Sex Civil Unions Bill
Gay Marriage Ban Upheld in Wisconsin
Obama Takes Incremental Approach to Gay Rights
Lawyer: Children Benefit from Gay Marriage Ban

[Perish1]

CBS IS CENSORING ME>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



it is really funny to look back through the last few pages of comments and see where others like slo-news-day and formrusmcsgt have referenced things that I wrote during discussions with me.
the funny thing is that all the comments I wrote have been erased. Either someone else is flagging me out of some weird reason or CBS IS CENSORING ME111111111111

[jrjrc]

To Perish1 - You just proved my point by referencing Justice Sandra Day O?Connor?s opinion. She MAY not have claimed to apply a higher level of scrutiny other than rational basis, but it is clear in her opinion that a RATIONAL BASIS is enough to give homosexuals equals rights to heterosexuals, which is one of the reasons why the ban prohibiting sodomy was struck down by the Supreme Court, even though sexual orientation may not have been in a suspect-class status. So now, tell me, what rational justification would you give for opposing a law to allow gays to marry?

[jrjrc]

Gay marriage is NOT a majority vs. minority issue, or a religious issue. This is an issue concerning EQUAL RIGHTS, and under the Constitution everyone is entitled to equal rights. If we made laws based on what the majority wanted, the voters would have banned freeing slaves, women the right to vote, interracial marriage, interfaith marriage, etc. etc. etc. Also, as far as religion is concerned, individuals have the right to believe anything you want to believe from a religious standpoint, but remember that everyone DOES NOT agree with your religious beliefs, and in a society that offers religious freedom, the use of the power of the state to enforce private religious sensibilities is an affront to ALL who would claim the right to worship according to the dictates of their own conscience. It seems that a lot of the opposition to Gay Marriage is based on hatred, prejudice, fear, misinformation, and ignorance. The bottom line is that if Straight people are allowed to get married, then gay people should have that same right.

[formrusmcsgt]

Well slow, I have guests arriving so I shall take my leave.

As always, a pleasure Sir.

[formrusmcsgt]

by slow-news-day July 11, 2010 4:48 PM EDT
Why would Sarge have to cut your whole post?
---
HIS rules.

Sheesh.

[formrusmcsgt]

by Perish1 July 11, 2010 4:45 PM EDT
Once again, incomplete cut and paste and one line remarks.
---
And this bothers you why?

Can't make a point in one line yourself?

Why should I write a book when a line will do?

Seems stupid to me.....

[formrusmcsgt]

by Perish1 July 11, 2010 4:45 PM EDT
Once again, incomplete cut and paste and one line remarks.
---
Listen twit-

I don't dictate how you should respond so don't try it on me.

I'll post what I damn well please.

To hell with you.

[formrusmcsgt]

by slow-news-day July 11, 2010 4:34 PM EDT

They should be free to marry the person they love. That's the point of marriage...

---
So true, so true.

But the self-sacntimonoius and homophobes can only see their side of the coin so, to them anyway, it's the only side that exists....

[formrusmcsgt]

by Perish1 July 11, 2010 4:36 PM EDT
The only "simple"thing here is your mind.

You make these smug little comments..
---
And you think you don't sound smug?

Hilarious, not to mention myopic...

[formrusmcsgt]

by Perish1 July 11, 2010 4:36 PM EDT
The only "simple"thing here is your mind.

You make these smug little comments and run away.
---
I'm right here.

You want to argue that you wish to deny equal rights to gays?