Skip to footer

Major gay marriage cases in federal court and where they stand

Battles over same-sex marriage have been raging in the federal courts for several years. Two could reach the US Supreme Court within a year: one challenging California's ban on gay marriage under Proposition 8, and the other seeking to invalidate the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Here are the cases to follow.

2. The challenge to DOMA: Federal appeals court in Boston

Jessica Rinaldi/REUTERS/File
Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley speaks to reporters after attending a federal appeals court hearing on the Defense of Marriage Act in Boston on April 4.

(Updated June 1, 2012)

The federal appeals court in Boston struck down the Defense of Marriage Act on May 31, 2012, ruling that the federal statute violates the constitutional rights of gay and lesbian married couples to equal treatment under the law.

The action by a unanimous three-judge panel of the First US Circuit Court of Appeals sets the stage for a much-anticipated showdown at the US Supreme Court over same-sex marriage. The First Circuit panel stayed its ruling pending further appeals. Appellate lawyers may either ask all active judges on the First Circuit to re-hear the case, or file an appeal directly to the US Supreme Court.

The decision came three weeks after President Obama announced his support of gay marriage. The Justice Department had initially worked to defend DOMA against the Massachusetts-based legal challenges, but last year announced it would no longer argue for the statute’s constitutionality.

The panel ruled on three consolidated cases, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) (10-2207), Massachusetts v. US Department of HHS (10-2204), and Hara v. OPM (10-2214).

The appeals court concurred with a July 2010 ruling by a federal judge in Boston declaring DOMA unconstitutional. 

2 of 4
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.