Unconstitutional ... the Defence of Marriage Act. Photo: Getty Images
WASHINGTON: A US federal appeals court ruled that the Defence of Marriage Act is unconstitutional because it denies equal rights for legally married same-sex couples. This makes it likely that the Supreme Court will consider the politically divisive issue for the first time in its next term.
The decision by a unanimous panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit in Boston was a big win for the President, Barack Obama, who recently said he supported states allowing gay men and lesbians to marry.
His administration said last year it would no longer defend the 1996 law, which limits federal recognition of marriage to those between a man and a woman. The law thus denies a host of federal benefits, such as filing joint tax returns or survivor benefits, to same-sex couples who were legally married in states that allow it.
The decision by a panel of judges nominated by presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton did not address whether the constitution provides gays and lesbians a fundamental right to marriage. It also did not address a part of the Defence of Marriage Act that says states do not have to recognise same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.
Some gay rights activists have felt that the limited question in the Defence of Marriage Act case made it a more attractive and incremental issue for an increasingly conservative Supreme Court than asking the justices to recognise a fundamental right of gays to marry.
The case presents only ''the question of how the federal government treats people once they are married in their states'', said Mary Bonauto, who argued the case for a group called the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders. ''We think this is a very solid decision to go before the Supreme Court.''
The decision by the Obama administration not to defend the Defence of Marriage Act - a law that was signed but now disavowed by Mr Clinton - prompted an angry response from House Republican leaders. They hired Paul Clement, who was solicitor-general in the administration of George W. Bush, to defend the law in court.
''We have always been clear we expect this matter ultimately to be decided by the Supreme Court, and that has not changed,'' Mr Clement said.
The federal judges said the same. The case ''couples issues of equal protection and federalism'' with the need to defer to Congress when it shows a rationale for passing a statute, wrote Circuit Judge Michael Boudin, the Bush appointee. There were precedents helpful to each side, he said.
''We have done our best to discern the direction of these precedents, but only the Supreme Court can finally decide this unique case,'' he wrote. The most likely timetable is that the case could reach the justices in the northern autumn, and if they decide to take it, it could be decided next year.
Thirty-eight states adopt a prohibition on same-sex marriage in either law or their constitutions. Since the Defence of Marriage Act was passed in 1996, same-sex marriage has become legal in eight states - Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maryland and Washington - and the District of Columbia. Maryland's and Washington's laws have not yet taken effect.
There were two cases in the 1st Circuit's decision. One was brought by seven same-sex couples married in Massachusetts and three surviving spouses of such marriages who were denied benefits and recognition. The decision said there were 100,000 couples who would be affected.
The Washington Post
No comments:
Post a Comment