Excerpt Source: MSNBC
A federal appeals court has ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act, a law that denies a host of federal benefits to same-sex married couples, is unconstitutional.
The law was passed in 1996 at a time when it appeared Hawaii would legalize gay marriage. Since then, many states have instituted their own bans on gay marriage, while eight states have approved it, led by Massachusetts in 2004, and followed by Connecticut, New York, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maryland, Washington state and the District of Columbia. Maryland and Washington’s laws are not yet in effect and may be subject to referendums.
The appeals court agreed with a lower court judge who ruled in 2010 that the law is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define marriage and denies married gay couples federal benefits given to heterosexual married couples, including the ability to file joint tax returns.
The 1st Circuit said its ruling wouldn’t be enforced until the U.S. Supreme Court decides the case, meaning that same-sex married couples will not be eligible to receive the economic benefits denied by DOMA until the high court rules.
Attorney Paul Clement, who represented the House of Representatives in defending DOMA, told msnbc.com that no decisions on legal strategy have been made.
“But we have always been clear we expect this matter ultimately to be decided by the Supreme Court, and that has not changed,” he said.
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the Boston-based legal group that brought one of the lawsuits on behalf of gay married couples, said the court agreed with the couples that it is unconstitutional because it takes one group of legally married people and treats them as "a different class" by making them ineligible for benefits given to other married couples.
Read the article Portion of Defense of Marriage Act Declared Unconstitutional
(Disclaimer: This literary work/article is the property of the named author and/or publication. This website nor it's authors or publishers claim an portion of this work as their own. It is used, in part, under fair use standands as a matter of public interest and full faith and credit is given to the actual owners and authors. The reprinting of the portion of this article is not meant to reflect and/or represent the views of the owners or authors of this website. Neither Christopher A. Pearsall nor any websites or companies owned by him claim any legal, right, title or interest to this literary work. Full Credit is given to the actual authors and owners.)