'If we are right in thinking that disparate impact on minority interests and federalism concerns both require somewhat more in this case than almost automatic deference to Congress' will, this statute fails that test,' said the three-judge panel. “But a lower federal court such as ours must follow its best understanding of governing precedent, knowing that in large matters the Supreme Court will correct mis-readings.”Īt issue is whether the federal government can deny tax, health and pension benefits to same-sex couples in states where they can legally marry.
“Invalidating a federal statute is an unwelcome responsibility for federal judges the elected Congress speaks for the entire nation, its judgment and good faith being entitled to utmost respect,’’ the ruling said.
In the unanimous ruling, a three-judge panel agreed with a decision made by a lower court in 2010 that DOMA is unconstitutional on the basis that it interferes with an individual state's right to define marriage.
Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston has ruled the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, discriminates against gay couples.
