DOMA unconstitutional, again

August 1, 2012 1:38 PM

Following the lead of the First Circuit and a handful of other federal District Courts, the US District Court for the District of Connecticut has declared DOMA unconstitutional. Judge Vanessa Bryant, a George W. Bush appointee, found that (i) statutes discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation create suspect classes and are subject to heightened judicial scrutiny, and (ii) even under the most deferential standard of judicial review, DOMA is unconstitutional because the disparate treatment of homosexuals bears no rational relationship to any legitimate governmental purpose.

If you are looking for zingers (or withering, point-by-point refutations of BLAG's pro-DOMA arguments), the 100 page opinion has them all:

• morality schmorality zinger: “mere negative attitudes, or fear, unsubstantiated by factors which are properly cognizable are not permissible bases for singling out a particular group for disparate treatment. [M]oral disapproval of a group,like a bare desire to harm the group, is an interest that is insufficient to satisfy rational basis review under the Equal Protection Clause."


• DOMA hates children zinger: "Section 3 of DOMA is inimical to its stated purpose of protecting children. As the Plaintiffs have acknowledged, DOMA does not alter or restrict the ability of same-sex couples to adopt children, a right conferred by state law, and therefore DOMA’s denial of federal marital benefits to same-sex married couples in fact leads to a significant unintended and untoward consequence by limiting the resources, protections and benefits available to children of same-sex parents. ... DOMA ham-fistedly deprives these adopted children of governmental services and benefits desirable, if not necessary, to their physical and emotional wellbeing and development creating an increased potential that they will become a burden on society.


• unintended consequences zinger: "Section 3 of DOMA disincentivizes heterosexual marriage by relieving homosexual couples of legal obligations imposed on heterosexual couples. For example, federal officials are subject to financial disclosure requirements to guard against abuse of official office and similar improprieties. ... These laws require disclosure of the financial interests of the public official’s spouse. By excluding a same-sex spouse from these ethical obligations and financial disclosure requirements, Section 3 of DOMA illogically burdens heterosexual couples and accords a benefit upon homosexual couples."


• federalism zinger: "[Gay marriage] is a quintessential legislative and democratic question that has been decided by the people of the states of Connecticut, Vermont and New Hampshire. ... To the extent that it can be said that DOMA abridges these states’ right to confer marital status on its residents, DOMA can be seen to frustrate the utility and promise of federalism and the democratic process more generally. Accordingly, the Court finds BLAG’s democratic process argument to be curiously misguided and unavailing."

Bonus: meet the plaintiffs.

Previously.

posted by subtle-t (3 comments total)

Related: U.S. Supreme Court Asked to Hear Prop. 8 Case
posted by mykescipark at 1:46 PM on August 1, 2012

*chip chip chip*

Little pieces flaked off and pulled out until the whole miserable thing crumbles. There is no finger that the other side has that can, um, block the holes in this dike.
posted by rtha at 1:46 PM on August 1, 2012

inimical to its stated purpose

Oh, snap!
posted by Egg Shen at 1:47 PM on August 1, 2012