|
"Congress" denial of federal benefits to same-sexcouples lawfully married in Massachusetts has not been adequatelysupported by any permissible federal interest,"" thecourt wrote. The decision addresses only couples who are legally married withinthe First Circuit district - which includes much of New England -though it could establish a precedent for courts across thecountry. Legal analysts said it is bound for the country"shighest court, possibly by the fall. The unanimous decision by a three-member panel of the appeals courtwas one of the most significant on gay rights since the 2003landmark state Supreme Judicial Court decision that approved gaymarriages in Massachusetts. "What we"re dealing with is how the federal governmenttreats people once they were already married by theirstates,"" said Mary Bonauto, a lawyer for Gay &Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, or GLAD, the Boston-basedadvocacy group that had challenged the law on behalf of 17plaintiffs. "They were denied [benefits] simply because they marriedsomeone of the same sex,"" said Bonauto, who alsoargued in the 2003 state court decision. The Defense of Marriage Act was enacted in the aftermath of aHawaii state court decision that hinted that same-sex marriagecould be allowed under existing laws. Several states, includingHawaii, later passed laws defining marriage as a union between aman and a woman, as did Congress. Attorney General Martha Coakley - who also challenged the Defenseof Marriage Act, known as DOMA, in a federal case before theappeals court - said after the ruling: "DOMA is anunconstitutional law, for which there is no justification. "This is a matter of fairness, equality, and respect forhuman beings."" Judge Michael Boudin, addressing the law"s conflict withstate laws, wrote in Thursday"s decision of Congress"s"effort to put a thumb on the scales and influence astate"s decision as to how to shape its own marriagelaws."" The 17 plaintiffs listed under GLAD"s lawsuit asserted thatthe federal law unfairly deprived them of advantages available toheterosexual couples, such as Social Security benefits and theright to file joint tax returns. Coakley had argued that the law dictated the way the state couldadminister federally funded programs, forcing the state todiscriminate against the type of marriages that it alreadyapproved. According to the marriage act, for instance, under somecircumstances, gay couples could be denied Medicaid and the statecould not bury the same-sex spouse of a war veteran in federallyfunded cemeteries. In making its decision, the court determined that the marriage actneeded a higher threshold of scrutiny because it discriminatedbased on sexual orientation. "Invalidating a federal statute is an unwelcomeresponsibility for federal judges; the elected Congress speaks forthe entire nation, its judgment and good faith being entitled toutmost respect,"" the court said in an opinion writtenby Boudin. "But a lower federal court such as ours must follow its bestunderstanding of governing precedent, knowing that in large mattersthe Supreme Court will correct misreadings."" Expecting an appeal in the Supreme Court, the court stayedThursday"s decision until the justices act on the matter. The country"s highest court ultimately will need to resolvethe dispute, the First Circuit Court said. "We have done ourbest to discern the direction of these precedents, but only theSupreme Court can finally decide this unique case,"" itsaid. The US Department of Justice, which had abandoned efforts to defendthe marriage act on equal protection grounds before the appealscourt, would not comment on the decision Thursday. A spokesman forthe White House told reporters that the administration maintainsthe belief that the act could not be defended on constitutionalgrounds. Paul Clement, a lawyer representing a House panel called theBipartisan Legal Advocacy Group, which agreed to continue to defendthe marriage act after the administration refused, said in astatement that no decision on an appeal has been made. "But,"" Clement continued, "we have alwaysbeen clear we expect this matter ultimately to be decided by theSupreme Court, and that has not changed."" The Bipartisan Legal Advocacy Group has 90 days to appeal.Coakley"s office and GLAD would then have 30 days to respond,meaning the high court could start to look at the case in the fall.The First Circuit issued a stay of its decision until a finaldisposition in the case. The decision Thursday had a ripple effect not only among gay-rightsgroups, but within the state"s legal community. And it comesafter President Obama"s historic declaration in support ofsame-sex marriage. Six states as well as the District of Columbia have approvedsame-sex marriages, while other states have provisions for civilunions. A federal appeals court in California recently declaredunconstitutional a state law that would have prohibited same-sexmarriages. That same circuit court is slated to consider a similarchallenge of the federal marriage act in the fall. "I think it"s a huge advance for the cause of equalrights for same-sex marriage, not only in a literal sense but morein a sense of carrying the flag for the cause,"" saidSusan Stenger, of the Boston law firm Burns & Levinson LLP. She added that the First Circuit court was conservative ininterpreting Supreme Court decisions that define the levels ofscrutiny needed for federal laws that could be seen asdiscriminating against a certain group. "The First Circuit"s analysis is very fair andmeasured,"" she said, "and frankly, if theSupreme Court is honest about its own precedents, it will behard-pressed not to agree with the First Circuit"sdecision."" US Representative Barney Frank, Mayor Thomas M. Menino, andGovernor Deval Patrick all issued statements in support of thecourt"s decision. The Massachusetts Family Institute, which had signed on as a friendof the court to defend the marriage act, said the decision was"unconscionable and another overreach of a Massachusettscourt on the definition of marriage."" The institute said it expects the Supreme Court to overturn theruling. But same-sex couples embraced the decision. Jonathan Knight, who, with his husband, Marlin Nabors, was aplaintiff in the GLAD case, said it affirmed "that ourrelationship is full of the same kind of hopes, struggles, anddynamics as all other couples."" Try BostonGlobe.com today and get two weeks FREE. Milton J. Valencia can be reached at. Follow him on Twitter @MiltonValencia. I am an expert from plasticsextrusionmachinery.com, while we provides the quality product, such as Sheet Extrusion Line , Board Extrusion Line Manufacturer, Hollow Sheet Machine,and more.
Related Articles -
Sheet Extrusion Line, Board Extrusion Line Manufacturer,
|
