A federal judge ruled today that part of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, is unconstitutional.
Judge Joseph Tauro, of U.S. District Court in Boston, issued rulings on two separate cases today.
"This court has determined that it is clearly within the authority of the Commonwealth to recognize same-sex marriages among its residents, and to afford those individuals in same-sex marriages any benefits, rights, and privileges to which they are entitled by virtue of their marital status," Tauro wrote in the decisionfor Massachusetts v. Health and Human Services.
"The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state, and, in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment. For that reason, the statute is invalid," he wrote.
In both Massachusetts and its companion case,Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, Tauro ruled specifically on section 3 of DOMA, which reads:
Whadaya know.
Judge Joseph Tauro, of U.S. District Court in Boston, issued rulings on two separate cases today.
"This court has determined that it is clearly within the authority of the Commonwealth to recognize same-sex marriages among its residents, and to afford those individuals in same-sex marriages any benefits, rights, and privileges to which they are entitled by virtue of their marital status," Tauro wrote in the decisionfor Massachusetts v. Health and Human Services.
"The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state, and, in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment. For that reason, the statute is invalid," he wrote.
In both Massachusetts and its companion case,Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, Tauro ruled specifically on section 3 of DOMA, which reads:
No comments:
Post a Comment