[{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org\/","@type":"BlogPosting","@id":"https:\/\/equallywed.com\/equality-wins-doma-found-unconstitutional\/#BlogPosting","mainEntityOfPage":"https:\/\/equallywed.com\/equality-wins-doma-found-unconstitutional\/","headline":"Equality Wins: DOMA Found Unconstitutional","name":"Equality Wins: DOMA Found Unconstitutional","description":"By Katherine Dean A federal judge in Boston ruled yesterday that portions of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) are unconstitutional because they violate...","datePublished":"2010-07-09","dateModified":"2021-06-21","author":{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/equallywed.com\/author\/admin\/#Person","name":"Equally Wed","url":"https:\/\/equallywed.com\/author\/admin\/","identifier":787,"image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/ca62cf123aaaf135c80b055249bacbda79de9226e11cdfcde6529bedf89683de?s=96&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/ca62cf123aaaf135c80b055249bacbda79de9226e11cdfcde6529bedf89683de?s=96&r=g","height":96,"width":96}},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Equally Wed","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"http:\/\/equallywed.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/equally-wed-lgbtq-weddings-logo.jpg","url":"http:\/\/equallywed.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/equally-wed-lgbtq-weddings-logo.jpg","width":218,"height":60}},"image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"http:\/\/equallywed.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/equally-wed-lgbtq-weddings-logo.jpg","url":"http:\/\/equallywed.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/equally-wed-lgbtq-weddings-logo.jpg","width":218,"height":60},"url":"https:\/\/equallywed.com\/equality-wins-doma-found-unconstitutional\/","about":["Marriage Equality News"],"wordCount":289,"articleBody":" By Katherine DeanA federal judge in Boston ruled yesterday that portions of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) are unconstitutional because they violate the 10th Amendment, which protects an individual state\u2019s right to define marriage. U.S. District Judge Joseph L. Tauro issued one strongly worded opinion in two separate cases that came before him in May, stating that the federal ban on gay marriage forced Massachusetts (where gay marriage is legally recognized) \u201cto engage in invidious discrimination against its own citizens in order to receive and retain federal funds.\u201d While issuing his landmark decision, Judge Tauro explained that DOMA also violates the Fifth Amendment, because \u201cirrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest.\u201d He went on to point out that \u201cthe 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.\u201d  Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, who argued on behalf of same-sex couples, said, \u201cIt\u2019s exactly the result we that wanted. The federal government really doesn\u2019t have an interest in telling Massachusetts, and has never in the past had an ability to dictate, how states define marriage. Marriage has been an issue that has been decided by the states.\u201dAs expected, gay marriage opponents are crying \u201cactivist federal judge,\u201d while urging that the case be appealed. So far, Judge Tauro\u2019s ruling only applies to same-sex couples in Massachusetts. However, if a higher court, such as the U.S. Supreme Court, upholds Judge Tauro\u2019s decision on appeal, the impact of his ruling could extend well beyond the state. "},{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org\/","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Equality Wins: DOMA Found Unconstitutional","item":"https:\/\/equallywed.com\/equality-wins-doma-found-unconstitutional\/#breadcrumbitem"}]}]