Slog
News & ArtsThursday, July 8, 2010
Politics Federal Judge Declares DOMA to Be Illegal
Posted by Eli Sanders on Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 2:10 PM
Just in from Massachusetts:
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.
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.
Evan Wolfson, of Freedom to Marry, adds some context:
Today's ruling affirms what we have long known: federal discrimination enacted under DOMA is unconstitutional. The decision will be appealed and litigation will continue. But what we witnessed in the courtroom cannot be erased: federal marriage discrimination harms committed same-sex couples and their families for no good reason.
4
Under what circumstances do federal laws trump state laws and vice versa?
(I realize that's a big question... any good resources? I mean, something with a bit more explanation than the US Constitution?)
(I realize that's a big question... any good resources? I mean, something with a bit more explanation than the US Constitution?)
6
WOO HOO!
Too bad this only affects their circuit and not ours.
Otherwise Hawaii would have to eat their veto.
Too bad this only affects their circuit and not ours.
Otherwise Hawaii would have to eat their veto.
7
No, it won't go to SCOTUS (at least yet). Next step is the circuit court of appeals, which will more likely than not reverse it. Don't get too excited.
8
Urgutha, that's the real question, and in fact, that's exactly the issue in the illegal immigration lawsuit against Arizona, too. This will be fun to watch.
And Will, it doesn't affect the circuit, just the district. Go to law school before you start shooting your mouth off.
And Will, it doesn't affect the circuit, just the district. Go to law school before you start shooting your mouth off.
9
It still means a State can put to the vote laws that will discriminate and/or take away the rights of gay people...
10
As I recall the district is the circuit back there. Massachusetts is pretty much Boston. People here are used to large areas for circuits because there used to be circuits the justices would ride on their horses, and later on trains.
Regardless, as others agreed, doesn't affect us, until it's at a US wide appeals level and it's likely to go SCOTUS.
Regardless, as others agreed, doesn't affect us, until it's at a US wide appeals level and it's likely to go SCOTUS.
12
@ 4 - Ah, federal preemption. What a wonderful field of legal study. Short answer: It's messy. Long answer: It's messier.
@ 7 - Kind of depends on who's sitting on the panel, though, doesn't it? I think the ruling has a decent chance of surviving a First Circuit appeal (especially if you get a panel that includes Souter, who's been hearing cases in Boston). That being said, it would probably be reheard en banc, in which case, all bets are off.
@ 6 - What 5280 @ 8 said. Besides, the whole point of the ruling is that it applies only to federal legislation. From Judge Tauro's opinion: "There can be no dispute that the subject of domestic relations is the exclusive province of the states. And the powers to establish eligibility requirements for marriage, as well as to issue determinations of martial status, lie at the very core of such domestic relations law." So, no, something like the Hawaii veto wouldn't be within the scope of this ruling.
@ 7 - Kind of depends on who's sitting on the panel, though, doesn't it? I think the ruling has a decent chance of surviving a First Circuit appeal (especially if you get a panel that includes Souter, who's been hearing cases in Boston). That being said, it would probably be reheard en banc, in which case, all bets are off.
@ 6 - What 5280 @ 8 said. Besides, the whole point of the ruling is that it applies only to federal legislation. From Judge Tauro's opinion: "There can be no dispute that the subject of domestic relations is the exclusive province of the states. And the powers to establish eligibility requirements for marriage, as well as to issue determinations of martial status, lie at the very core of such domestic relations law." So, no, something like the Hawaii veto wouldn't be within the scope of this ruling.
13
Ha! States' Rights FTW!!!
How sweet that a Teabagger Trumpeting Point is being used in the legal battle to ensure equal civil rights to ALL citizens of America... SWEEEEET!!!
How sweet that a Teabagger Trumpeting Point is being used in the legal battle to ensure equal civil rights to ALL citizens of America... SWEEEEET!!!
14
@ 10 - No, the District of Massachusetts is just the District of Massachusetts. There's only one district in the state of Massachusetts, but the First Circuit includes Massachusetts, Maine, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and (weirdly enough) Puerto Rico. And in any event, there's an automatic right of appeal, so what really matters is what the Circuit Court of Appeals says. Period.
Also, please please PLEASE pick up a book on American Judicial History before you disseminate your misunderstanding of what circuit riding was. Yeesh.
Also, please please PLEASE pick up a book on American Judicial History before you disseminate your misunderstanding of what circuit riding was. Yeesh.
15
@ 14 - Whoops, Connecticut is in the second circuit, my bad. Still, the First Circuit is quite a big larger than just Massachusetts. And all the judges are different.
16
This will be fast tracked with the Perry ruling, which is due out in the next 2 or 3 business days as far as anyone can tell. The Supreme Court will absolutely hear and rule on both within the next 18-24 months.
The court has long desired making settled law of gay partnerships because, in the grand scheme of things, they are a major distraction to our way of life. It's easily understood that the american public will almost immediately lose interest in the issue when the court issues a ruling. Heck, the only rhetoric from either side of the issue is almost entirely hyperbole in regards to what is ultimately a pretty mundane issue (when ruled upon).
It's important to recognize the importance of references to Baker v. Nelson coming from the supreme court lately. It was bounced for lack of a federal question, and now there is one. It's pretty easy to imagine the likelihood of a landmark ruling at the time of Baker v. Nelson, had any state or major municipality recognized gay partnerships at the time, but none did. Now we have many. Even deep red states get gay partnership bills proposed every session nowadays.
This case seems insignificant on its face, but it's not. It's the cornerstone of a major landmark ruling.
The court has long desired making settled law of gay partnerships because, in the grand scheme of things, they are a major distraction to our way of life. It's easily understood that the american public will almost immediately lose interest in the issue when the court issues a ruling. Heck, the only rhetoric from either side of the issue is almost entirely hyperbole in regards to what is ultimately a pretty mundane issue (when ruled upon).
It's important to recognize the importance of references to Baker v. Nelson coming from the supreme court lately. It was bounced for lack of a federal question, and now there is one. It's pretty easy to imagine the likelihood of a landmark ruling at the time of Baker v. Nelson, had any state or major municipality recognized gay partnerships at the time, but none did. Now we have many. Even deep red states get gay partnership bills proposed every session nowadays.
This case seems insignificant on its face, but it's not. It's the cornerstone of a major landmark ruling.
17
Time to appeal? I think it's 45 days, but I haven't read the rule for a while. Rest assured they won't blow the deadline.
19
@12: Wouldn't killing this whole thing require a LOT of judicial hand jobs, though? Unless it's a really really quiet ruling that smothers it with a pillow, this thing is going to snowball.
Unless the LGBT community gets itself all worked up over some other distracting issue and ignores the significance of this. I mean, paying Aubrey Sarvis to prolong something that could be solved by mass self-outings is great, and all...
Unless the LGBT community gets itself all worked up over some other distracting issue and ignores the significance of this. I mean, paying Aubrey Sarvis to prolong something that could be solved by mass self-outings is great, and all...
20
Interesting points, BC. "Fast-tracked." Well, it could happen, but I've spent 10 years of my life fucking around with appeals on cases, so there's no way I could say that's a given.
22
@ 16 - I don't know, the issues are distinct enough that they might not be tracked together, if only because Tauro's opinion relied in part on the right of states to make domestic relations law. Since Perry is about state, rather than federal, law, it's possible that they'll be decided separately. But I can't know that for sure.
@ 18 - Will, I didn't quite understand the degree of hostility on the Slog boards until now. Do you actually know anything?
For the record, the most prestigious of the Circuits is also geographically the smallest, D.C.
@ 18 - Will, I didn't quite understand the degree of hostility on the Slog boards until now. Do you actually know anything?
For the record, the most prestigious of the Circuits is also geographically the smallest, D.C.
25
@23: I mean killing its chances of making it to the top. I know there are lots of punts on these issues, but, without being a hypocrite regarding that hyperbole thing I said earlier, this is a big big big case and I just can't see how they could duck out on it.
So far as the Perry/Gill are concerned, I don't necessarily think they'll be combined, but even Brown v. Board of Education was a patchwork of 4 or 5 different cases that weren't all entirely related to each other except for the broader fundamental point of discrimination.
Maybe I'm being a little too hopeful for a landmark ruling.
So far as the Perry/Gill are concerned, I don't necessarily think they'll be combined, but even Brown v. Board of Education was a patchwork of 4 or 5 different cases that weren't all entirely related to each other except for the broader fundamental point of discrimination.
Maybe I'm being a little too hopeful for a landmark ruling.
26
Part of the problem is our legal system is set up for the original 13 colonies that became the first states, and has only been modified slightly since we did the Louisiana Purchase.
Thus, eastern circuits have more to do with what used to be, and not where most of the population actually lives.
Thus, we get bizarre circuits like the 7th which made sense back when nobody pretty much lived here, but are unmanageable in their current population, not to mention their tech heavy litigation which demands a level of expertise even the US supreme court fails to fully grok.
Oh, and fuck you too, 5280.
Thus, eastern circuits have more to do with what used to be, and not where most of the population actually lives.
Thus, we get bizarre circuits like the 7th which made sense back when nobody pretty much lived here, but are unmanageable in their current population, not to mention their tech heavy litigation which demands a level of expertise even the US supreme court fails to fully grok.
Oh, and fuck you too, 5280.
27
@15 if they're different than they can't intermarry. Mixed marriages aren't provided for in the original articles of Confederation you guys worship.
31
Will, you don't help your case when you somehow manage to confuse the Seventh and Ninth Circuits.
Anyway, this isn't binding precedent in any circuit or district: there is no such thing as "the law of the district." It might be persuasive to another judge, but that's it. See, for instance, Threadgill v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc., 928 F. 2d 136 (3rd. Cir. 1991), available at http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?c… :
First, it is clear that there is no such thing as "the law of the district." Even where the facts of a prior district court case are, for all practical purposes, the same as those presented to a different district court in the same district, the prior "resolution of those claims does not bar reconsideration by this Court of similar contentions. The doctrine of stare decisis does not compel one district court judge to follow the decision of another." Where a second judge believes that a different result may obtain, independent analysis is appropriate.
Anyway, this isn't binding precedent in any circuit or district: there is no such thing as "the law of the district." It might be persuasive to another judge, but that's it. See, for instance, Threadgill v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc., 928 F. 2d 136 (3rd. Cir. 1991), available at http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?c… :
First, it is clear that there is no such thing as "the law of the district." Even where the facts of a prior district court case are, for all practical purposes, the same as those presented to a different district court in the same district, the prior "resolution of those claims does not bar reconsideration by this Court of similar contentions. The doctrine of stare decisis does not compel one district court judge to follow the decision of another." Where a second judge believes that a different result may obtain, independent analysis is appropriate.
33
Oh yeah. Nothing in Massachusetts is legally relevant these days. And circuits have never been split or anything.
Also, if any circuit is too unwieldy right now, it's the 9th Circuit. Of course, giving California its own circuit isn't really a viable option, so for now, not sure how it would get split up.
5280 @ 24 - Again, I was skeptical. No longer.
Also, if any circuit is too unwieldy right now, it's the 9th Circuit. Of course, giving California its own circuit isn't really a viable option, so for now, not sure how it would get split up.
5280 @ 24 - Again, I was skeptical. No longer.
34
@ 31 - Very good point. But even though the precedental value is limited, Tauro's holding is the law as applies to this particular case. But you're right - which makes the upcoming litigation before the 1st Circuit all the more critical.
35
AC@31: You're bringing back memories now. I actually tried to make that argument to a federal judge back in about 1995 or 1996 or so. Didn't get very far with it. You're absolutely right.
36
@ 35 - Also a good point. Once a judge in a particular district issues a ruling on an issue, other judges are inclined to be relatively deferential.
Again, this is going to the 1st Circuit anyway, so the purpose of the district court litigation was really to create a record.
Again, this is going to the 1st Circuit anyway, so the purpose of the district court litigation was really to create a record.
38
Haha, yeah, pretty much. And again, a lot depends on the panel that we draw in the First Circuit. Until, of course, we get to the delightful shit show that is an en banc hearing.
39
and oh man, that Joseph Tauro is just another one of those rogue activist Nixon appointees with an agenda.
"Opponents of gay marriage said they were certain the rulings would be overturned on appeal.
Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, called Tauro's ruling "judicial activism" and said Tauro was a "rogue judge." Gay marriage advocates will keep pushing their agenda in the courts, she said...
"We can't allow the lowest common denominator states, like Massachusetts, to set standards for the country"".
--AP
"Opponents of gay marriage said they were certain the rulings would be overturned on appeal.
Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, called Tauro's ruling "judicial activism" and said Tauro was a "rogue judge." Gay marriage advocates will keep pushing their agenda in the courts, she said...
"We can't allow the lowest common denominator states, like Massachusetts, to set standards for the country"".
--AP
40
@ 39 - *Falls over*
"We can't allow the lowest common denominator states, like Massachusetts, to set standards for the country."
That...that may actually be the funniest thing I've ever read. Yeah, honey, Massachusetts is totally what people thing of when they think lowest common denominator.
"We can't allow the lowest common denominator states, like Massachusetts, to set standards for the country."
That...that may actually be the funniest thing I've ever read. Yeah, honey, Massachusetts is totally what people thing of when they think lowest common denominator.
41
Wake me up when you guys join the 21st Century.
I figure 2020 at this rate. Cause you're not willing to do what you have to do to get national change.
I figure 2020 at this rate. Cause you're not willing to do what you have to do to get national change.
42
Even if it did reach the SCOTUS (which I'm not holding breath on), it wouldn't be the same without Justice Stevens. I've always wanted to see his rulings on something like this. Ah well.
44
@ 42 - Haha, agreed.
I swear to god, she will have been on the court for a decade, and I still won't be able to get out of the habit of calling her "Dean" Kagan.
I swear to god, she will have been on the court for a decade, and I still won't be able to get out of the habit of calling her "Dean" Kagan.
45
wow this is exciting
now all those states can go back and outlaw inter-racial marriage without the federal government butting its nose in....
now all those states can go back and outlaw inter-racial marriage without the federal government butting its nose in....
46
@45: Outlawing interracial marriage counts as discrimination based on race, which is illegal under Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, under the Equal Protection Clause. "No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". If the States wanted to illegalize interracial marriage, they'd have to illegalize marriage for everyone. And Section 5 gives the Federal government direct authority to enforce this. "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
In other words, nice try, Alleged. Thank you for playing.
In other words, nice try, Alleged. Thank you for playing.
47
Maybe this is a little unnecessary, but if the ruling holds, doesn't that also set up really good precedent AGAINST a future federal pro- gay marriage amendment? Or am I way out of the loop, and that was never a possible solution...
48
@46
And what about your comment doesn't apply to same-sex marriage? LGBT citizens are just as much "persons with its jurisdiction."
And what about your comment doesn't apply to same-sex marriage? LGBT citizens are just as much "persons with its jurisdiction."
49
@ 48 - Exactly. Ultimately, this case and the Prop 8 case will be decided on two different issues. The fact that the states have the right to make domestic relations law does not mean they have an unlimited right to do so - their discretion is limited (mostly) by the 14th Amendment.
Logically, there's no reason not to extend the holding of Loving v. Virginia beyond interracial marriage to include same-sex marriage; the reasoning is pretty much identical. The difference, of course, is that SCOTUS has already extended 14th Amendment protection to persons on the basis of race. They haven't (yet?) done so with respect to sexual orientation.
Logically, there's no reason not to extend the holding of Loving v. Virginia beyond interracial marriage to include same-sex marriage; the reasoning is pretty much identical. The difference, of course, is that SCOTUS has already extended 14th Amendment protection to persons on the basis of race. They haven't (yet?) done so with respect to sexual orientation.
50
You keep thinking you'll change it without extreme tactics.
But that shows you haven't been paying attention to what happened in Canada and Iceland and other nations that actually HAVE legal gay marriage.
The cover story is that it was all nice and clean. But underneath it was cut throat.
But that shows you haven't been paying attention to what happened in Canada and Iceland and other nations that actually HAVE legal gay marriage.
The cover story is that it was all nice and clean. But underneath it was cut throat.
51
Anne (@14)...
I'm a little late to the thread party, and it's a little late at night, so I'm just going to string together the following illustrative key words:
1st Circuit. Caribbean/Puerto Rico. Molasses->rum. Slave-trade triangle. Jamaica Plain. Super interesting!
I'm a little late to the thread party, and it's a little late at night, so I'm just going to string together the following illustrative key words:
1st Circuit. Caribbean/Puerto Rico. Molasses->rum. Slave-trade triangle. Jamaica Plain. Super interesting!
52
DOMA was the alternative to an amendment to the U.S Constitution. The most strident on the issue pointed out that the Act could always be overturned by courts. Just one more thing to rile up the far right in advance of the November election. God I hate judges from Massachusetts. Their timing is perfect, the last time they acted on issue (I know that it was the Massachusetts Supreme Court) it aided in the re-election of George Bush (I know that choosing John Kerry as the Democratic candidate was a bigger mistake). I still grind my teeth when i think about the election. Why couldn't the idiots have waited until after the election. Sometimes polical reality rather the immorality of denying people equal rights needs to take precedence. I'm talking a delay of months not years. Anyway, I believe that the State should only recognize and reward civil unions that are available to every homo sapien (excluding incest). Leave the issue of marriage to whatever church will sanction it. This is a real separation of Church and State issue, not whether there is a damn creche scene on public property. (by the power invested in me by the State of ____, I now pronounce you whatever and whatever) Sorry for venting.
53
That's not venting at all. Yours is a classically libertarian viewpoint, and one, I might add, that I completely agree with. Nevertheless, do you really think you're going to convince all the Bible-thumpers out there that this is the correct way to handle this issue? I think not.
54
@ 52 - Enh, the polling about the issues people voted on in 2004 was pretty poorly constructed. Sampling issues aside (and there were many), "social" issues were lumped together as one category, whereas, say, national security and defense were parsed out into the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, domestic security measures, etc. Same with economic issues. The idea that gay marriage was what got Bush (re?)elected is simply unfair.
The other thing is, there's never an opportune time for legislation/judicial action that protects politically unpopular minorities. It's almost always going to result in electoral losses for whoever has the civic courage to stand up for what's right. Especially these days, when we're pretty much always in an election cycle at the national level. We've got elections every two years, and the campaigning season seriously lasts almost that long at this point.
That being said, Judge Tauro...well, he's old. And kind of prone to doing...whatever he wants. But, er, you didn't hear that from me.
@ 51 - You are awesome. Also, now I want rum cake.
The other thing is, there's never an opportune time for legislation/judicial action that protects politically unpopular minorities. It's almost always going to result in electoral losses for whoever has the civic courage to stand up for what's right. Especially these days, when we're pretty much always in an election cycle at the national level. We've got elections every two years, and the campaigning season seriously lasts almost that long at this point.
That being said, Judge Tauro...well, he's old. And kind of prone to doing...whatever he wants. But, er, you didn't hear that from me.
@ 51 - You are awesome. Also, now I want rum cake.
55
Anne, I'll happily mail you a rum cake! But first, I'll need you to kidnap a few people and ship them to Suriname. Then please kindly instruct the Surinamese to send me their finest sugar canes!
56
P.S. Where might one get that rum cake? I always found the North End bakeries overrated. Do places like the South End Buttery make that sort of dessert?
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (56) RSS