The Constitutionally Offensive Defense of Marriage

And another wall comes crumbling down. Judge Tauro, up in federal court in Boston, just found that DOMA violates the both the rights of states to define marriage and equal protection in the U.S. Constitution. (federalism decision here and equal protection decision here)

Judge Tauro wrote re: federalism:

The government is certainly correct in its assertion that the scope of a federal program is generally determined with reference to federal law. But the historically entrenched practice of incorporating state law determinations of marital status where they are relevant to federal law reflects a long-recognized reality of the federalist system under which this country operates. The states alone have the authority to set forth eligibility requirements as to familial relationships and the federal government cannot, therefore, have a legitimate interest in disregarding those family status determinations properly made by the states

And re: equal protection:

In the wake of DOMA, it is only sexual orientation that differentiates a married couple entitled to federal marriage-based benefits from one not so entitled. And this court can conceive of no way in which such a difference might be relevant to the provision of the benefits at issue. By premising eligibility for these benefits on marital status in the first instance, the federal government signals to this court that the relevant distinction to be drawn is between married individuals and unmarried individuals. To further divide the class of married individuals into those with spouses of the same sex and those with spouses of the opposite sex is to create a distinction without meaning. And where, as here, “there is no reason to believe that the disadvantaged class is different, in relevant respects” from a similarly situated class, this court may conclude that it is only irrational prejudice that motivates the challenged classification. As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth
Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Surely, this decision will be appealed, but for now, I'll say congratulations to all the people I know and love that are still waiting to be recognized by our government as full citizens and full human beings. The fight is far from won, but this is a great step for justice.

Edit: I didn't initially realize there were two separate cases - the quotes are both from the GLAD case on equal protection.