Massachusetts federal court decision
For those who don't know already, the Defense of Marriage Act has two major effects. Section 2 says that states don't have to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages unless they really want to. Section 3 defines marriage for the federal government, and basically says that same-sex marriages don't count, regardless of whether any state recognizes them.
It's a bit complicated, but in light of some recent rulings by Judge Tauro it looks like the federal government now has to recognize same-sex marriages from Massachusetts with regards to benefits, taxes, etc. (in theory also immigration, but I'm not positive on how that works?). Due to limited jurisdiction, this doesn't affect any other states. Section 2 of DOMA is not mentioned, so no other state has to recognize same-sex marriages from Massachusetts.
Despite those limitations, the case does provide interesting legal precedent, so there are three major legal effects I see from this ruling:
1) For the first time part of DOMA was ruled unconstitutional (Section 3, specifically the federal definition of marriage).
2) Based on the 10th amendment to the federal constitution, who can marry who is definitely under the control of states, not the federal legislature (with some exceptions; for example, neither states nor any other governmental entity can legally ban or fail to recognize interracial marriage).
3) The federal government is being banned from treating gay married people differently from straight married people (as long as they were married in Massachusetts), based on the Equal Protection clause of the federal constitution.
I think the Department of Justice can still appeal this in an attempt to uphold DOMA. While I think there's a good chance they won't bother, they haven't exactly shied away from defending DOMA so far. If this was appealed and they lost, then the federal government would have to recognize marriages from some other parts of the country (although it wouldn't matter in most states where same-sex marriage isn't legal in the first place).
The really big same-sex marriage battle, of course, is the Perry vs. Schwarzenegger case in California. That case is being fought over a different legal issue, which is whether any governmental entity, at any level, under any reasonable circumstances, can institute a ban on gay marriage. Most of the legal arguments in that case are different, but there is one common issue, which is whether the government has any business distinguishing between gay and straight relationships in the first place. Judge Tauro seems to feel that there isn't, and it's possible that some of his reasoning could influence Perry.
It's a bit complicated, but in light of some recent rulings by Judge Tauro it looks like the federal government now has to recognize same-sex marriages from Massachusetts with regards to benefits, taxes, etc. (in theory also immigration, but I'm not positive on how that works?). Due to limited jurisdiction, this doesn't affect any other states. Section 2 of DOMA is not mentioned, so no other state has to recognize same-sex marriages from Massachusetts.
Despite those limitations, the case does provide interesting legal precedent, so there are three major legal effects I see from this ruling:
1) For the first time part of DOMA was ruled unconstitutional (Section 3, specifically the federal definition of marriage).
2) Based on the 10th amendment to the federal constitution, who can marry who is definitely under the control of states, not the federal legislature (with some exceptions; for example, neither states nor any other governmental entity can legally ban or fail to recognize interracial marriage).
3) The federal government is being banned from treating gay married people differently from straight married people (as long as they were married in Massachusetts), based on the Equal Protection clause of the federal constitution.
I think the Department of Justice can still appeal this in an attempt to uphold DOMA. While I think there's a good chance they won't bother, they haven't exactly shied away from defending DOMA so far. If this was appealed and they lost, then the federal government would have to recognize marriages from some other parts of the country (although it wouldn't matter in most states where same-sex marriage isn't legal in the first place).
The really big same-sex marriage battle, of course, is the Perry vs. Schwarzenegger case in California. That case is being fought over a different legal issue, which is whether any governmental entity, at any level, under any reasonable circumstances, can institute a ban on gay marriage. Most of the legal arguments in that case are different, but there is one common issue, which is whether the government has any business distinguishing between gay and straight relationships in the first place. Judge Tauro seems to feel that there isn't, and it's possible that some of his reasoning could influence Perry.