« ExxonMobil stockholders reject LGBT protections | Main | Al Jazeera English video | Mariela Castro visits U.S. »

Read the opinion: U.S. appeals court unanimously rules Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional


BOSTON -- A federal appeals court Thursday declared that the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutionally denies federal benefits to married gay couples, a ruling all but certain to wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In its unanimous ruling, the three-judge panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston said the 1996 law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman discriminates against gay couples because it doesn't give them the same rights and privileges as heterosexual couples.

The court didn't rule on the law's other politically combustible provision, which said states without same-sex marriage cannot be forced to recognize gay unions performed in states where it's legal. It also wasn't asked to address whether gay couples have a constitutional right to marry.

Click here to read the complete article.

Click here to read the opinion:


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Read the opinion: U.S. appeals court unanimously rules Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional:


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Why does the miami herald not use the same commenting format for this column that they use for their other articles? it is very awkward and difficult to read, it discourages from writing comments

Hollywood, thanks for posting your comment.

It's about time.

This country is going down the drain fast. Morals is degrading to a point to become another Sodom & Gomorrah. Repent of all your wickedness or the wrath of God will destroyed you.

This case has better legal standing than Prop. 8 as far as declaring all DOMA's unconstitutional. I'm hoping for the best!! I'd love to see same sex marriages recognized by the State of Florida.

Surpeme Court will uphold DOMA. Is it even a question?

JJ it can't. It is in violation of Amend. 14., Sec. 1.

Read it for yourself.

The comments to this entry are closed.