Federal District Court Judge Joseph Tauro (D. Mass) issued a significant decision [PDF] today, ruling that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.  Judge Tauro concluded that the section, defining marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman, violates the Equal Protection Clause.  Interestingly, the Court concluded that the statute “fails to pass constitutional muster even under the highly deferential rational basis test.”

The Court explained:

This court simply “cannot say that [DOMA] is directed to any identifiable legitimate purpose or discrete objective. It is a status-based enactment divorced from any factual context from which [this court] could discern a relationship to legitimate [government] interests. Indeed, Congress undertook this classification for the one purpose that lies entirely outside of legislative bounds, to disadvantage a group of which it disapproves. And such a classification, the Constitution clearly will not permit.  In the wake of DOMA, it is only sexual orientation that differentiates a married couple entitled to federal marriage-based benefits from one not so entitled. And this court can conceive of no way in which such a difference might be relevant to the provision of the benefits at issue.  By premising eligibility for these benefits on marital status in the first instance, the federal government signals to this court that the relevant distinction to be drawn is between married individuals and unmarried individuals. To further divide the class of married individuals into those with spouses of the same sex and those with spouses of the opposite sex is to create a distinction without meaning. And where, as here, “there is no reason to believe that the disadvantaged class is different, in relevant respects” from a similarly situated class, this court may conclude that it is only irrational prejudice that motivates the challenged classification.  As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Court relies substantially on Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), which struck down a Colorado law preventing homosexuals from ever being classified as a protected class.

The decision, standing alone, will have only a limited impact on DOMA going forward.  But it will be interesting to see if the Obama administration appeals, as a decision from the First Circuit on this issue could have real impact.  (Although the opinion of one Circuit court judge is already out there.)  A big decision against DOMA might also signal to the judge deciding the Boies-Olson Prop. 8 trial in California that other jurists find anti-gay-marriage provisions troubling.

-Michael

Update: The New York Times has a good discussion, including some quotes from experts on what the prospects for appeal look like.