Published July 9, 2010
The short answer: It’s not entirely clear. This ruling is more important in what it sets up than what it does.
Here’s what you need to know going forward:
Keegan O'Brien of Worcester leads chants as part of a protest of the Defense of Marriage Act in this June 2009 file photo. (Elise Amendola/AP)
First, gay marriage continues to be legal in a handful of states (including four of New England’s six states) and illegal in dozens of others.
U.S. Judge Joseph Tauro ruled that parts of DOMA — the 1996 law signed by President Clinton defining marriage as between one man and woman — are unconstitutional. He ruled that married couples in Massachusetts — gay and straight — are entitled to federal marriage benefits. While it’s a major opinion from a high-level judge, Tauro’s ruling carries weight only in Massachusetts.
“This is a decision from a trial judge in the federal court. Unless and until the First Circuit decides to weigh in — and/or the Supreme Court of the United States, it doesn’t have any binding precedent on other states,” said David Frank, a senior reporter for Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, on Morning Edition.
“Other courts will look at this opinion and whether it’s persuasive they will start including its reasoning in its own opinions,” said Kent Greenfield, a Boston College law professor. “But it only has the weight a court chooses to give for it.”
Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, who filed one of the two suits decided yesterday, said the ruling would bring benefits to Massachusetts’ same-sex couples — and to the state’s coffers.
“In a monetary sense, it’s a boon for the commonwealth because our own state budget will get the kind of federal reimbursement for married couples that we should have been getting all along,” Coakley said.
“There’s a range of differential benefits, from Social Security to Medicare to other health benefits that you are entitled to if you are married, filing your income tax that the federal government has just not recognized, because it has the restrictive definition of marriage,” Coakley said. “This decision should change that.” But how immediate that change would come is not yet clear.
[pullquote]Coakley said the ruling will bring tangible benefits to same-sex couples — but only in Massachusetts. How quickly? Not clear.[/pullquote]
The U.S. Justice Department, which serves the president, will appeal in the First Circuit Court of Appeals, because the executive branch is bound to defend the laws passed by Congress (even though President Obama opposes the law).
Main Justice has 60 days to appeal Tauro’s ruling, but the case would not likely not proceed until late fall or early winter, Frank said. Pending that appeal, all the laws on the books are likely to remain unchanged.
Depending on the eventual outcome of that case, an appeal would be brought to the U.S. Supreme Court, which could decide to take the case or not.
If the SCOTUS does hear the case, gay-rights proponents — liberals, people who believe gay people should be allowed to marry — would be fighting for the right of the states to determine which marriage benefits go to whom. Meanwhile, opponents — conservatives, people who normally seek limited federal power — would be fighting for the federal government to make sweeping determinations about marriage law.
“This case exactly flips everybody’s intuition and everybody’s ideology,” said Greenfield, the BC professor.
The battle over gay marriage — and, for that matter, what effect this ruling will actually have on gay marriage — is hardly over.
Further reading:
Disclosure: I am not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Still have questions? Leave them in the comments.
