It's Official: The Defense of Marriage Act Is Unconstitutional

It's no secret that the Defense of Marriage Act is bad law. Heck, even politicians that used to support it have come out saying that DOMA's passage was a mistake, and that it should be repealed.

Perhaps momentum for that kicked up a notch today, with a pair of historic court rulings out of Massachusetts in two court cases, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, and Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Health and Human Services. Both cases challenged the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, and in both cases, a federal judge has delivered an amazing victory for marriage equality.

According to Judge Joseph Tauro, the Defense of Marriage Act boils down to an "irrational prejudice" that conclusively violates the principles within the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, as well as the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution.

"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," Judge Tauro ruled in the Gill case. He had similar words for the Massachusetts case, where Judge Tauro said that the Defense of Marriage Act encroaches on state's rights.

Ah, isn't it refreshing to see the words "irrational prejudice" attached to such a hateful and discriminatory piece of legislation as the Defense of Marriage Act? Take that, Gov. Linda Lingle.

Meanwhile, the decisions in both of these cases now have the Obama administration in a certain pickle. As AMERICAblog notes, the Obama administration is going to have to decide whether or not to appeal these decisions. An appeal is likely, and the ramifications of the Obama administration having to file that appeal aren't lost on anyone already sensitive to the tensions that exist between the LGBT community and President #44.

But for now, cue the celebrations. Freedom to Marry wasted no time applauding Judge Tauro's decision, which they said sends a nationwide message that bodes well for equality.

"Today's historic ruling strikes down federal marriage discrimination enacted under the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" in 1996. DOMA created two classes of marriage — those the federal government respects and some it doesn't — denying married same sex couples and their families equal treatment and depriving them of the crucial safety-net that marriage brings," said Freedom to Marry's Evan Wolfson. "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."

The Gill case was filed by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD). They have an awesome page on their site detailing the LGBT people and same-sex couples who were plaintiffs in this case. Here are stories of people brutally wronged by the Defense of Marriage Act. Today is without a doubt a victory for these brave men and women.

The Massachusetts case, meanwhile, was brought forward by the state's Attorney General, none other than Martha Coakley. Say what you want about her ability to run a U.S. Senate campaign, but here is an Attorney General with her eye on the ball when it comes to understanding federal and state law, and why since its inception, the Defense of Marriage Act overstepped its bounds.

Photo credit: greenmelinda