U. S. Bankruptcy Court: Rules DOMA Unconstitutional

Yet another federal court- this time the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California - has ruled that DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, is unconstitutional and violates the equal protection clause of the U. S. Constitution. In doing so, the Court found DOMA to be unconstitutional both under a rational basis test and the heighten scrutiny test. What's also interesting is that 20 out of the 25 judges on the court joined in the ruling that DOMA was unconstitutional and violated the rights of the same sex couple seeking a joint filing for protection in the court. Frankly, it ought to be painfully obvious to anyone other than a cretin or a theocrat seeking to destroy constitutional government that DOMA is a discriminatory law based solely on religious prejudice. Metro Weekly has coverage on the ruling and here are some highlights (The Court's opinion can be found here):
*
Today, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California, in Los Angeles, released an opinion finding Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional in a bankruptcy filing brought by a same-sex married couple, Gene Douglas Balas and Carlos A. Morales.
*
The underlying basis for the challenge was described by the court: This case is about equality, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, for two people who filed for protection under Title 11 of the United States Code (Bankruptcy Code). Like many struggling families during these difficult economic times, Gene Balas and Carlos Morales (Debtors), filed a joint chapter 13 petition on February 24, 2011. Although the Debtors were legally married to each other in California on August 20, 2008, and remain married today, the United States Trustee (sometimes referred to simply as “trustee”) moved to dismiss this case pursuant to Bankruptcy Code § 1307(c) (Motion to Dismiss), asserting that the Debtors are ineligible to file a joint petition based on Bankruptcy Code § 302(a) because the Debtors are two males.
*
After reviewing the law as it relates to DOMA, the court concluded: This court cannot conclude from the evidence or the record in this case that any valid governmental interest is advanced by DOMA as applied to the Debtors. . . . . In the court’s final analysis, the government’s only basis for supporting DOMA comes down to an apparent belief that the moral views of the majority may properly be enacted as the law of the land in regard to state-sanctioned same-sex marriage in disregard of the personal status and living conditions of a significant segment of our pluralistic society. Such a view is not consistent with the evidence or the law as embodied in the Fifth Amendment
*
The opinion is then signed by 20 of the 24 (or 25) bankruptcy judges in the district, presumably to show that a majority of the bankruptcy judges in the district approved of this method of addressing the question in the district.