In two companion cases today, a Massachusetts federal district judge held Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (1 USC Sec. 7) unconstitutional. That section provides that in interpreting any federal statute or regulation, "the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."
Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, (D MA, July 8, 2010), is a suit brought by same-sex couples and survivors of deceased same-sex spouses who were denied various federal marriage-based benefits available to heterosexual couples. The court held that DOMA violates the equal protection clause. It held that it need not decide whether to apply strict scrutiny because the statute lacks a rational basis to support it. In the court's view: "Congress undertook this classification for the one purpose that lies entirely outside of legislative bounds, to disadvantage a group of which it disapproves."
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (D MA, July 8, 2010), was brought by Massachusetts-- which recognizes same-sex marriage-- contending that DOMA violates the 10th Amendment by intruding on areas of exclusive state authority. It also argued that the law exceeds Congress' Spending Clause powers by forcing the state to discriminate against its own citizens in order to receive federal funds. The court agreed with the challenge holding that DOMA imposes an unconstitutional condition on the receipt of federal funds, impermissibly interferes with state domestic relations laws, and regulates Massachusetts "as a state," interfering with its ability to structure its traditional functions. The New York Times reports on today's decisions.
