A federal appeals court in Boston ruled that the heart of the Defense of Marriage Act -- defining marriage as only a heterosexual union --is unconstitutional.
Plaintiffs in Boston challenged Section 3 of the act, claiming it was discriminatory because federal Social Security, veterans and other benefits were denied to same-sex couples married in Massachusetts, where such unions are legal.
“The denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married does burden the choice of states like Massachusetts to regulate the rules and incidents of marriage,” the appeals judges said in their opinion today, upholding the ruling of a lower court.
The justices stayed the ruling pending an anticipated decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on this case or a similar case. The ruling applies to four New England states and Puerto Rico, which are covered by the circuit court's jurisdiction.
The Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, following the legalization of same-sex marriage in several states. After the U.S. lost its case in Massachusetts, the Obama administration decided that Section 3 of the act was unconstitutional and that it wouldn’t defend it in court. A bipartisan panel of the House of Representatives voted to intervene and defend the act.
The cases are Gill v. OPM, 10-2207 and 11-2214, and Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. U.S. Department of Health, 11-2204, 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (Boston).
