1st Circuit Rules Portion of Defense of Marriage Act Unconstitutional

I have long maintained that the federal Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") serves no legitimate governmental purpose other than to illegally enshrine a particular homophobic set of religious beliefs in the nation's civil laws - something clearly in violation of the 1st Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom to ALL citizens.  While it declined to strike down DOMA on the basis that it violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, it did rightly find that DOMA is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause because it discriminates against same sex couples without furthering any legitimate governmental purpose.  Needless to say, the Christofascists are shrieking and spewing spittle as they rant about "activist judges"  while their boot licking puppets in the GOP are likewise whining and wringing their hands in feigned dismay.  The 1st Circuit's opinion can be found here.  Here are some highlights from the Washington Post: 

A federal appeals court on Thursday ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional because it denies equal rights for legally married same-sex couples, making it likely that the Supreme Court will consider the politically divisive issue for the first time in its next term.

The decision by a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit in Boston was a big win for President Obama, who recently said he supported states allowing gay men and lesbians to marry.

The decision by a panel made up of judges nominated by presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton did not address whether the Constitution provides gays and lesbians a fundamental right to marriage. It also did not address a part of DOMA that says states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.

Some gay rights activists have felt that the limited question in the DOMA case made it a more attractive and incremental issue for an increasingly conservative Supreme Court than asking the justices to recognize a fundamental right of gays to marry.

The case presents only “the question of how the federal government treats people once they are married in their states,” said Mary L. Bonauto, who argued the case for a group called the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD).   “We think this is a very solid decision to go before the Supreme Court.”

The decision by the Obama administration not to defend DOMA — a law that was signed but now disavowed by Clinton — promped an angry response from House Republican leaders. They hired Paul D. Clement, who was solicitor general in the administration of George W. Bush, to defend the law in court.

 While the congressional record on the act is “filled with encomia to heterosexual marriage,” the opinion states, Congress did not explain “how denying benefits to same-sex couples will reinforce heterosexual marriage.”  And the Supreme Court has ruled, the panel said, that “moral disapproval” is not adequate to justify discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Boudin’s decision, which was joined by Chief Circuit Judge Sandra L. Lynch and Circuit Judge Juan R. Torruella, was the first time an appeals court has agreed with a challenge to DOMA.  But it is part of a string of legal decisions that gay-rights activists have won on same-sex marriage. Two U.S. District Court judges in California have found the same section of DOMA considered by the Boston court to be unconstitutional, and those cases will soon be considered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco.

If the Christofascists cannot accept religious freedom for ALL citizens  as required by the Constitution, how about we ship them all to Iran where they can conduct a crusade against Islam. There, they will either prevail or end up being treated as they have willingly and maliciously treated others.