The coat of arms is encircled by the Latin text "Sigillum Reipublicæ Massachusettensis" (literally, The Seal of the Republic of Massachusetts). The Massachusetts Constitution nevertheless designates the name of the government as Commonwealth, not Republic.

Yesterday, U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act’s denial of federal rights and benefits to lawfully married Massachusetts couples “offends” the notion of states’ rights as enshrined in the 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

A Justice Department spokesperson said that Obama administration was “reviewing the decision,” and had not yet decided whether to appeal to defend a law against same sex marriage that President Obama says he opposes. Tracy Schmaler, a U.S. Justice Department spokeswoman, said by e-mail they are also reviewing the decision.

U.S. District Court Judge Tauro, nominated to the bench by President Richard Nixon, ruled that DOMA violates the U.S. Constitution “by intruding on areas of exclusive state authority, as well as the Spending Clause, by forcing the Commonwealth to engage in invidious discrimination against its own citizens in order to receive and retain federal funds in connection with two joint federal-state programs.”

The decision will have immediate benefits for gay couples in Massachusetts, as well as ripple effects around the nation.  Any state that recognizes gay marriage or civil unions, the federal government must also recognize. Should the Obama Administration appeal the decision, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to uphold the ruling. Over the past 20 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has restricted the authority of Congress and the President to interfere in the jurisdiction of the states.

The U.S. Defense of Marriage Act, which defines the institution as being between a man and a woman for federal marriage purposes was signed into law in 1996 by former U.S. President Bill Clinton. As of 2003, it affected 1,138 federal programs in which marital status was a factor in eligibility for benefits, the judge said, citing a 2004 report by the federal government.

U.S. District Judge Tauro stated Congress and the President exceeded its authority in legislating the issue and that the measure infringed states’ rights to regulate marriage and other domestic policies within their sovereign borders. Tauro said he agreed with Massachusetts that the law forced the commonwealth “to engage in invidious discrimination against its own citizens in order to receive and retain federal funds.”

“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,” Tauro said in one of two rulings against the United States Government he issued yesterday.

Massachusetts became the first U.S. state to permit same- sex marriages in May 2004, after its highest court ruled that gays and lesbians had a constitutional right to wed. The state sued the United States Government over the act last year. (previous story)

Second-Class Marriages

It is unconstitutional “for the federal government to decide who is married and to create a system of first and second-class marriages,” Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley said in a statement. (previous story)

Tauro issued a parallel ruling in a separate case filed by seven same-sex couples and three survivors of same-sex partners, all of whom were married in Massachusetts. The Justice Department had asked the court to dismiss both cases, arguing that the act was “consistent with prevailing equal protection case law.”

The state’s case is Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, 09-cv-11156, and the couples’ case is Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, 09- cv-10309, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts (Boston).

Gay rights advocates hailed the rulings as important steps toward striking down the law, which they say discriminates against their sexual orientation. Opponents denounced the decisions as judicial activism.

Click here to read the ruling.