1st Circuit Court Strikes Down DOMA
The Opinion

Boston Globe article. (Warning: the comment section sucks so read with caution. Amusingly the most hateful comments also have the worst spelling. Why is that?)

For non-Americans, DOMA is the Defense of Marriage Act. It was passed in the 90s under President Clinton and basically bars same sex couples who are married to receive federal benefits (being able to file their taxes jointly and probably a lot of other stuff I don't know about because I'm single). It is the most weaselly named law I have heard of, and I am including No Child Left Behind in this. It's also horribly unconstitutional.

Caution: I am no kind of legal expert so take the following with a grain of salt. It's not total victory, states that don't have same sex marriage are not required to acknowledge marriages that occurred in other states or countries. But it's another step to marriage equality.

From here it will no doubt be appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can either A) decide not to hear it in which case the ruling will stand as is, or B) decide to hear it.

EDIT: hopefully those links will work now :C

EDIT2: more background for non-USAns. There are nine Circuit Court districts, which are one level below the Supreme Court. Technically speaking this decision is only effective in the 1st Circuit district and DOMA could theoretically still be enforced in the other eight. However, Obama has ordered the Attorney General to not defend DOMA in court so that is unlikely. Moreover, such an action would open the way for tons of lawsuits in the other courts. Personally I don't think the Federal Government will keep implementing DOMA nation-wide after this ruling, but that's just my non-expert opinion.

(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

	pantyless_angel 2012-05-31 09:22 pm UTC (link)
	Has the voting public ever done the right thing as far as minority rights are concerned? Honest question, as far as I can remember the voting majority has always been a spoiled brat, who never wants to share its toys. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

platedlizard
2012-05-31 09:53 pm UTC (link)

I can't remember. The closest I can think of was women's and other minorities suffrage, which was put into place by the 19th amendment. The amendment had to be ratified by the states so there was some kind of vote, I think. Certainly nothing more recent. As far as I know every state that has marriage equality got it through their legislature.

aaand holy crap, N. and S. Carolina didn't ratify it until 1971 and 1969 respectively o.O

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

wonapalei
2012-05-31 10:17 pm UTC (link)

Technically, Massachusetts got same-sex marriage through a court decision (Goodridge v. Department of Public Health) that denying same-sex couples the right to marry was unconstitutional. In order to amend the state constitution, a constitutional convention (basically, the legislature) had to vote in two separate consecutive conventions (i.e., in two consecutive years) to put the measure on the ballot; then the voters would have had the final say. The measure was narrowly approved in the first session but not the second, and since then there has been ever-waning support for the amendment.

Still, the point regarding the majority of the voting public not granting minority rights stands. That's kind of the whole damn point of having the judicial branch in the first place: so that we can have cases like Brown v. Board of Education and Goodridge v. Department of Public Health.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

undomielregina
2012-05-31 11:17 pm UTC (link)

There's also New York, where the marriage equality act passed in the Republican-controlled state senate, which should make it pretty safe from repeal. Since that was a vote of elected representatives, I think it counts.

But yeah, in general, American legislatures are explicitly deigned to favor the interests of the majority, with the judicial branch there to chivy them on minority rights.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

(Read comments) -