Gay marriage on the agenda

Pushing the divisive issue of gay marriage to the center of the political arena, a federal judge in Boston has ruled unconstitutional key parts of a 1996 law that forbids the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage and bars gay couples from receiving marriage-based federal benefits. Judge Joseph Tauro ruled in two separate cases that the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, forced Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens and violated a federal postal worker’s rights, by not allowing her to extend her health insurance to her wife.

The Obama administration is expected to appeal the ruling, since it’s obligated to defend federal statutes in court. But the administration is in a tricky position, since Obama, along with many Democrats, say they oppose DOMA and want it repealed.

What a “show of courage” from a 79-year-old, Republican-appointed judge, said Linda Hirshman in Slate.com. The gay-rights group that brought the suit on behalf of several gay couples aimed merely to “nibble away at some of the worst aspects” of the law. Instead, they got a “sweeping opinion” that roundly rejected the federal government’s ability to impede gay marriage in states.

The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

Thank goodness this egregious piece of “judicial liberal activism” will probably get overturned on appeal, said Investor’s Business Daily in an editorial. Judge Tauro treats marriage as “just another business deal and not the basic foundation of a stable society.” It’s ironic, to say the least, that DOMA was passed precisely to prevent judges like Tauro from overruling elected representatives and imposing gay marriage “by judicial fiat.”

Nice try, said Andrew Sullivan in TheAtlantic.com. In fact, Tauro’s ruling is a ringing defense of states’ rights, since it hinges on letting the people in each state decide for themselves how they want to treat civil marriage. You want irony? “The Right are being hoisted on their own federalist petard and will now have to choose whether states’ rights or marriage inequality is more important to them.”