The U.S. Department of Justice on Tuesday defended the federal law defining marriage as between a man and a woman by appealing two rulings in Massachusetts by a judge who called the law unconstitutional for denying federal benefits to gay married couples.
In two separate cases, U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro in July ruled the federal Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, is unconstitutional because it interferes with a state’s right to define marriage and denies married gay couples an array of federal benefits given to heterosexual married couples, including the ability to file joint tax returns.
The notice of appeal filed Tuesday did not spell out any arguments in support of the law. The appeals eventually will be heard by the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston.
President Barack Obama has repeatedly said he would like to see the 1996 law repealed. But the Justice Department has defended the constitutionality of the law, which it is required to do.
“The Department of Justice has a long-standing practice of defending federal statutes when they are challenged in court, including by appealing adverse decisions of lower courts,” said Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler.
Tauro’s rulings came in separate challenges: one filed by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley and the other by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, a Boston-based legal rights group that argued successfully to make Massachusetts the first state in the country to legalize gay marriage.
“We fully expected an appeal and are more than ready to meet it head on,” said Mary Bonauto, GLAD’s civil rights project director. “DOMA brings harm to families like our plaintiffs every day, denying married couples and their children basic protections like health insurance, pensions and Social Security benefits. We are confident in the strength of our case.”
Coakley’s office had argued the law violates the U.S. Constitution by interfering with the state’s right to make its own marriage laws and forces Massachusetts to violate the constitutional rights of its residents by treating married gay couples differently than other married couples in order to receive federal funds for certain programs.
Coakley said in a statement Tuesday that she was looking forward to making her case before the appeals court.
“DOMA is an unjust, unfair, and unconstitutional law that discriminates against Massachusetts married couples and their families,” Coakley said.
Opponents of gay marriage, citing the president’s support for repealing DOMA, have accused the Obama administration of failing to vigorously defend the law.
During court hearings before Tauro, a Justice Department lawyer argued the federal government has the right to set eligibility requirements for federal benefits, including requiring that those benefits go only to couples in marriages between a man and a woman.
DOMA defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, prevents the federal government from recognizing gay marriages and allows states to deny recognition of same-sex unions performed elsewhere. Since the law passed in 1996, many states have instituted their own bans, while five states and the District of Columbia have legalized same-sex marriage.
In his ruling, Tauro said the law forces Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens to be eligible for federal funding in federal-state partnerships.
In a ruling in GLAD’s case, Tauro said the act violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.
“Congress undertook this classification for the one purpose that lies entirely outside of legislative bounds, to disadvantage a group of which it disapproves. And such a classification the Constitution clearly will not permit,” Tauro wrote.
The rulings apply only to Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage has been legal since 2004. But gay marriage supporters are hoping the rulings could prompt other states to file their own challenges to DOMA and could also give momentum to a movement to repeal the law.
Mochila insert follows…
Psychoanalyst Justin Frank on why Trump ‘hates reality’ and must be ‘quarantined’
Donald Trump is a living, breathing national emergency. Our president has repeatedly encouraged violence against his perceived enemies — and at least some of his supporters are following his lead. These are not isolated incidents. There are dozens of court cases where Donald Trump has been cited for "inspiring" acts of violence and other crimes. There are also the most odious examples such as the recent white supremacist terror attack in El Paso in which the alleged mass murderer wrote an online "manifesto" that almost verbatim channeled Trump's threatening rhetoric towards nonwhite people.
Like a fox — how a TV news channel is tearing America apart
A little over 20 years ago, Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes concocted a profitable way to tap into the white supremacist ideology still bubbling below America’s surface.
They started a “news” network that, instead of providing actual news, gave white, conservative viewers the news they wanted to hear: that they, their families, and their values were under attack by minorities, gays, women, liberals, socialists, Muslims, atheists, the media, etc. — and therefore their biases were justified.
It’s been a lucrative strategy. However, just making a buck wasn’t enough for them. They also wanted to shape the fortunes of the country they were dividing. Here, too, they had tremendous success.
Is Trump’s love affair with Fox News fading?
Last month after Donald Trump watched Fox News lob what he called "softball questions" at a Democratic lawmaker, the US president delivered a crisp smackdown of his favorite network: "Fox sure ain't what it used to be."
After years of often fawning coverage by Fox, particularly from its pro-Trump anchors like Sean Hannity, the commander in chief appears to be tilting his media gaze toward a younger, more right-wing rival, cable outfit One America News Network (OANN).
The small upstart broadcaster was launched only recently, in 2013, by technology millionaire Robert Herring, who sought a more conservative alternative to mainstream media behemoths like CNN.