social sciences
special features
about glbtq

Advertising Opportunities
Press Kit
Research Guide
Terms of Service
Privacy Policy
site guide
search tips
research guide
editors & contributors
contact us
send feedback
write the editor
Subscribe to our free e-mail newsletter to receive a spotlight on glbtq culture every month.
e-mail address:
Popular Topics in Social Sciences
Stonewall Riots Stonewall Riots
The confrontations between police and demonstrators at the Stonewall Inn in New York City the weekend of June 27-29, 1969 mark the beginning of the modern glbtq movement for equal rights.
Gay Liberation Front
Formed soon after the Stonewall Riots of 1969, the short-lived but influential Gay Liberation Front brought a new militancy to the movement that became known as gay liberation.
The Sexual Revolution, 1960-1980 The Sexual Revolution, 1960-1980
The sexual revolution of post-World War II America changed sexual and gender roles profoundly.
Leather Culture
"Leather" is a blanket term for a large array of sexual preferences, identities, relationship structures, and social organizations loosely tied together by the thread of what is conventionally understood as sadomasochistic sex.
Anthony, Susan B. Anthony, Susan B.
Although best known for her crusade for women's suffrage, Susan B. Anthony spoke out on a range of feminist issues.
Africa: Sub-Saharan, Pre-Independence
With reports from hundreds of sub-Saharan African locales of male-male sexual relations and from about fifty of female-female sexual relations, it is clear that same-sex sexual relations existed in traditional African societies, though varying in forms and in the degree of public acceptance
Androgyny Androgyny
Androgyny, a psychological blending of gender traits, has long been embraced by strong women, soft men, members of queer communities, and others who do not easily fit into traditionally defined gender categories.
A cultural crossroads between Asia and Europe, Russia has a long, rich, and often violent heritage of varied influences and stark confrontations in regard to its patterns of same-sex love.
Topics In the News
U.S. Court of Appeals Declares DOMA Unconstitutional
Posted by: Claude J. Summers on 05/31/12
Last updated on: 05/31/12
Bookmark and Share

Attorney Mary Bonauto at a press conference following the court's decision.

On May 31, 2012, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit declared Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional in the combined cases Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v. United States. The decision, authored by Judge Michael Boudin, who was appointed to the bench by President George H. W. Bush, marks the first time DOMA has been declared unconstitutional by a federal appellate court. Chief Judge Sandra Lynch, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton, and Judge Juan Torruella, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan, joined in Boudin's decision.

The ruling, like the cases themselves, dealt narrowly with the question of federal recognition of same-sex marriage in states where such marriages are legal and with benefits for same-sex couples, not with the legality of same-sex marriage itself. Those benefits range from the right to file joint tax returns to the ability to collect social security survivor benefits.

The decision upholds the opinion of U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro, issued on July 8, 2010, that the federal law defining marriage as consisting of only one man and one woman violates the equal protection clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Court rejected Judge Tauro's holding that DOMA violated the Tenth Amendment, but it evoked the principles of federalism in reaching its decision.

The Court declined to apply "heightened scrutiny" in testing the legislation, but it relied on recent decisions, such as Romer v. Evans, that acknowledged "the historic patterns of disadvantage suffered by the group adversely affected." In those decisions, the Supreme Court, Boudin wrote, "did not adopt some new category of suspect classification or employ rational basis review in its minimalist form; instead, the Court rested on the case-specific nature of the discrepant treatment, the burden imposed, and the infirmities of the justifications offered."

Applying this standard, which is sometimes described as "rational basis with teeth," the Court concluded: "[M]any Americans believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and most Americans live in states where that is the law today. One virtue of federalism is that it permits this diversity of governance based on local choice, but this applies as well to the states that have chosen to legalize same-sex marriage. Under current Supreme Court authority, Congress' denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married in Massachusetts has not been adequately supported by any permissible federal interest."

The decision paid far greater credence than deserved to the argument that Congress was not motivated by hostility to homosexuals when it passed DOMA. It did, however, find that "Several of the reasons given [to justify the rational basis of the legislation] do not match the statute and several others are diminished by specific holdings in Supreme Court decisions more or less directly on point. If we are right in thinking that disparate impact on minority interests and federalism concerns both require somewhat more in this case than almost automatic deference to Congress' will, this statute fails that test."

Acknowledging that "Supreme Court review of DOMA is highly likely," the Court stayed the implementation of its decision pending a likely appeal.

Since the First Circuit is a small circuit, with only five active judges, it is unlikely that an en banc review would be granted. More likely, the defendants will move directly to request that the U.S. Supreme Court hear the case.

Because the Department of Justice, which had defended DOMA at the District Court level in 2010, stopped defending Section 3 of DOMA in February 2011, the Republican-dominated House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) intervened to defend the law. Representing BLAG, conservative attorney Paul Clement was the sole lawyer defending DOMA in Boston at the oral arguments held on April 4, 2012.

Mary Bonauto of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) represented the plaintiffs in Gill and Massachusetts Attorney General's Office Civil Rights section chief Maura Healey represented the state of Massachusetts. They were joined in some arguments by DOJ Civil Division Chief Stuart Delery.

In a conference call to reporters, Bonauto described the decision as "crisp, solid and well-reasoned," adding that it was "rooted in the last 50 years of equal protection jurisprudence."

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley issued a statement in which she said that "Today's landmark ruling makes clear once again that DOMA is a discriminatory law for which there is no justification."

A second DOMA challenge, Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management, is on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On May 24, a federal district court in California struck down DOMA in Dragovich v. Department of Treasury, the details of which may be found here. Other challenges are pending in various federal district courts from New York to California.

The decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit may be read here.

In the video below, from a press conference held after a hearing in the Gill case in 2010, Mary Bonauto discusses the case.

Related Encyclopedia Entries
browse:   arts   literature   social-sciences   discussion boards
learn more about glbtq       contact us       advertise on glbtq.com
Bookmark and Share

glbtq™ and its logo are trademarks of glbtq, Inc.
This site and its contents Copyright © 2002-2015, glbtq, Inc.

Your use of this site indicates that you accept its Terms of Service.