Bending toward justice
Thursday, July 8th, 2010The arc of the universe bent a little truer today, as U.S. District Court Judge Joseph L. Tauro ruled in two cases touching on the constitutionality of the ill-named Defense of Marriage Act. The Gill case concerned plaintiffs in same-sex marriages who were suing for federal benefits on grounds of, among other things, equal protection; in the Massachusetts case, the Commonwealth sued HHS for an abrogation of rights.
In both cases, he found for the plaintiffs, and in what language! The decisions, with Chris Geidner’s commentary, are here.
I just finished reading Gill, and I can’t remember being so buoyed by a federal court decision since Lawrence v. Texas.. The defendants’ arguments were absolutely demolished; they were pulverized, in language about as blunt and absolute as I can ever remember reading in a court decision (perhaps save the Orly Taitz ruling). Judge Tauro went through every asserted justification for the law (and some that were not asserted) and just knocked them down, concluding that the only possible motivation for the law was “animus” (well, duh — as he quoted, the animus was on display right there on the floor of the House), and that in such a case, the law runs directly counter to elementary Constitutional protections.
This is all just common sense to gay people, but to hear it bluntly and matter-of-factly affirmed by a federal judge, in the impersonal language of a court opinion, is thrilling. Read the decision. It’ll make your day!

A visibility and safety initiative, from Mexico, on behalf of gay, transgendered, and other vulnerable people: 



