A Landmark Ruling

Via TPM, Judge Joseph Tauro of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts has just issued a ruling striking down aspects of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional (in a case it should be noted brought by much maligned Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley).  The money quote from the opinion that is sure to enrage the homophobic right:

By premising eligibility for these benefits on marital status in the first instance, the federal government signals to this court that the relevant distinction to be drawn is between married individuals and unmarried individuals. To further divide the class of married individuals into those with spouses of the same sex and those with spouses of the opposite sex is to create a distinction without meaning.

Oh my! 

Judge Tauro goes on to state:

And where, as here, "there is no reason to believe that the disadvantaged class is different, in relevant respects" from a similarly situated class, this court may conclude that it is only irrational prejudice that motivates the challenged classification. 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.

This is a fantastic thing to see, just a flat out distillation of what we know lies behind the opposition to gay marriage and the fact that such prejudice has no place in our laws. 

Of course, my jubilation is deeply tempered by the fact that this case will almost assuredly end up in the United States Supreme Court where its fate will rest in the hands of one Anthony Kennedy I would imagine. 

It is interesting -- I was going to write a post about the recently concluded trial in California challenging Proposition 8 and its wisdom as a legal, political and tactical matter.  As here, I tend to think that the trial judge will, on the basis of the record put before him, strike down Proposition 8 and that this case too will make its way to the high court.  With the Proposition 8 case I felt some hesitancy about the strategy because I truly believe this is a situation that could have been reversed at the ballot box in 2012 or 2016.  And therein lies an interesting dilemma -- plainly we do not want a world in which individual rights are subject to constraint on the basis of prejudice and group hatred.  On the other hand, when the battle appears to be moving in your direction in terms of public opinion, isn't there something to be said for simply winning outright among the electorate?  Especially where a trial court victory may be subject to ultimate reversal when the Supreme court gets a shot at it.

I was also wondering if a DOMA challenge wouldn't be stronger at a point where the marriage equality forces had a few more legislative victories under our belts -- if say, we could win in California, New York, New Jersey, and Washington State, giving more heft to the places where equality has already been established, while also hoping that the make up of the Supreme Court might become more favorable.  This obviously shouldn't make a difference in constitutional adjudications, but I suspect it might. 

But fuck it, the battle has been joined and won, at least temporarily, on grounds that I think are increasingly hard to dispute in a way that any decent judge could find persuasive.  Defeat of DOMA is the linchpin of achieving full marriage equality.  Once it has been defeated, gay marriages that are legal in any one state must be afforded full faith and credit by all other states.  It would in one stroke effectively undo all of those state constitutional amendments prohibiting marriage equality.   "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice" indeed.

   

Comments

[kathy a.]

woot woot woot wooot!

i think the prop 8 trial is also going to win. but you know how it goes with irrational prejudices -- you can win and win and win, and it's like playing whack-a-mole at the amusement park, because even big wins do not mean it is over; some other obstacle will pop up, you can count on it. but things are indeed bending more toward justice.

[kathy a.]

i didn't mean to make light of this, but rather am thinking of the civil rights movement. it wasn't brown v. board of education, and it wasn't even the civil rights act of 1964 -- it was lots and lots of things, some absolutely gruesome, and i think many of us are not convinced that movement has finished its work, lo these decades later. eyes on the prize.

[litbrit]

But fuck it, the battle has been joined and won, at least temporarily, on grounds that I think are increasingly hard to dispute in a way that any decent judge could find persuasive.

Hear, hear.

Now if we could just get the stupid gay-adoption ban in Florida overturned, that would be another great step.

The navigating of long arcs requires infinite stores of energy, hope, and patience, doesn't it.

[oddjob]

I also would like to note that as to Justice Kennedy, it is he who has written both landmark rulings regarding gay equality in the USA. It was he who wrote the majority opinion in Romer v. Evans, and it was he who wrote the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, including its provision explicitly reversing the court's previous decision in Bowers v. Hardwick.

[oddjob]

I knew Martha Coakley had brought this suit, and loved it. IIRC it is the only suit to date that argues not the matter of the deprived rights of individual Americans (with regards to gay rights), but the deprived rights of a state.

[Davis X. Machina]

For what it's worth, The redoubtable Jack Balkin has some real issues with the decision qua decision, and with its likely longevity through the appeals process.

[Sir Charles]

Davis,

I am not very keen on the Tenth Amendment argument as well. But I think the equal protection argument is compelling and correct.

[minstrel hussain boy]

it's always good to win one, but the fight will be long and hard. it's always that way when you're up against fearful, stupid, and sanctimonious people. when you have all three of them together it makes for endless fights over things that shouldn't even be up for discussion.

i mean really, what the fuck? this is about simple equality, but the same people who rail endlessly against "activist judges" and "america first" have no problem amending constitutions with the express intent to deny rights to a class of people.

what the fucking fuck?