A federal court judge has ruled that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which established the federal government’s definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, is unconstitutional:

 

“Plaintiffs contend that, due to the operation of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, they have been denied certain federal marriage-based benefits that are available to similarly-situated heterosexual couples, in violation of the equal protection principles embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. . .[T]his court agrees.”

-- Gill v. Office of Personnel Management

Click here to read the decision.

 

“This court has determined that it is clearly within the authority of the Commonwealth to recognize same-sex marriages among its residents, and to afford those individuals in same-sex marriages any benefits, rights, and privileges to which they are entitled by virtue of their marital status. The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state, and, in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment. For that reason, the statute is invalid.”

                Click here to read the decision.

 

The National LGBT Bar Association would like to congratulate Mary Bonauto and the rest of the GLAD team for this important victory. For more information about GLAD, please visit glad.org.

 

In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act which states:

 

“No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.” (Section 2)

 

and

 

“In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.” (Section 3)

 

On March 3, 2009, GLAD filed a legal challenge to Section 3 of DOMA (Gill v. Office of Personnel Management) in Federal District Court in Boston on behalf of eight married couples and three surviving spouses from Massachusetts who have been denied federal legal protections available to spouses. On July 8, 2009, the Massachusetts Attorney General also filed a suit (Commonwealth v. United States Department of Health and Human Services) challenging Section 3 as unconstitutional.