U.S. District Court Judge Vanessa L. Bryant today ruled in a federal case in Connecticut that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) â┚¬â€ the federal definition of marriage â┚¬â€ is unconstitutional. On DOMA’s definition of â┚¬Å”marriage,â┚¬Â court finds â┚¬Å”that no conceivable rational basis exists for the provision.â┚¬ÂÂ
In her decision in the case, Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management, Bryant found:
â┚¬Å”Having considered all four factors, this Court finds that homosexuals display all the traditional indicia of suspectness and therefore statutory classifications based on sexual orientation are entitled to a heightened form of judicial scrutiny. However, the Court need not apply a form of heightened scrutiny in the instant case to conclude that DOMA violates the promise of the equal protection as it is clear that DOMA fails to pass constitutional muster under even the most deferential level of judicial scrutiny.â┚¬ÂÂ
She later concluded:
â┚¬Å”In sum, having considered the purported rational bases proffered by both BLAG and Congress and concluded that such objectives bear no rational relationship to Section 3 of DOMA as a legislative scheme, the Court finds that no conceivable rational basis exists for the provision. The provision therefore violates the equal protection principles incorporated in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.â┚¬ÂÂ
Several other judges over the past two years have reached the same conclusion. Federal judges in Massachusetts, California and New York have found DOMA’s provision defining “marriage” and “spouse” as only being unions of one man and one woman in all federal laws unconstitutional, as did one federal appeals court.
The ruling comes as the Supreme Court is facing requests in several cases to decide the question of DOMA’s constitutionality once and for all.
Read the full ruling:3:10-cv-01750 #116
