9th Circuit Judicial Council Finds DOMA Unconstitutional

In yet another blow to the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA"), 9th Circuit Judicial Council found that DOMA to be unconstitutional, citing federal court rulings that have found that DOMA violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.  I'd venture further, that DOMA violates the freedom of religion guarantees of the First Amendment as well since it discriminates based on gays failure to adhere to conservative Christian views of marriage.  Religion should have absolutely no place in the nation's CIVIL law marriage laws.  The case in question arose out of an effort by a court employee to add his husband to his health coverage (they were legally married during the window of time same sex marriage was legal in California before passage of Proposition 8) where DOMA was cited as barring such coverage.  Here are highlights from the San Francisco Chronicle:  

A regional court council has ordered San Francisco's federal court to pay an employee's costs for insurance coverage for his husband, citing an increasing number of rulings that have declared Congress' ban on same-sex spousal benefits unconstitutional.

Last week's ruling by the Judicial Council of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was another rebuff of the Defense of Marriage Act, the 1996 law prohibiting federal marital benefits to gay and lesbian couples who are legally married in their states.

The U.S. Supreme Court could take up the issue Friday when it reviews challenges to rulings by federal appeals courts in Boston and New York, and from a federal judge in San Francisco, that found the law an unconstitutional act of discrimination.

In the insurance case, Christopher Nathan, 39, of San Francisco, a law clerk for U.S. Magistrate Maria Elena James, sought coverage for his spouse, Thomas Alexander, 40. The couple wed in 2008, in a ceremony performed by James, before Proposition 8 prohibited same-sex marriages in California.
When Nathan tried to enroll Alexander in the government's insurance plan, he was turned down by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts because the 1996 law bars federal recognition of same-sex unions.

In April, Chief U.S. District Judge James Ware said the denial violated the federal court's rules against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender, and ordered the court to reimburse Nathan for the costs of buying private insurance.

The Judicial Council, the final authority in the administrative review process, went a step further in this week's order and said DOMA has been held unconstitutional by a San Francisco federal judge in another employee's case. The three-judge panel ordered the court to determine how much it owes Nathan and then pay him within 10 days.

We can be assured that the Christofascists will be wailing and gnashing their teeth over this result.