Thursday Judge Joseph Tauro of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled in favor of gay couples' rights in two separate challenges to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act(DOMA).

Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Department of Health and Human Services, declares the denial of federal rights and benefits to lawfully married Massachusetts couples under the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to be unconstitutional.

Judge Tauro, who was nominated to the bench by President Richard Nixon, held in Gill that DOMA violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws, concluding that “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.” These decisions are likely to be appealed by the Department of Justice to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

"Today’s decision is a confirmation of what every lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender American knows to be a basic truth – we, and our families, are equal," said HRC President Joe Solmonese. "This is an important step forward, but there is a long path ahead before we see this discriminatory law consigned to the dustbin of history. Judge Tauro’s decisions make clear that there is no constitutional justification for DOMA, despite the Department of Justice’s contentions in defending the statute. While we expect the Department to continue to defend DOMA on appeal, we urge the Obama administration to push Congress to repeal a law that we know, and Judge Tauro recognized, serves no purpose but to denigrate our families."

In March 2009, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) filed Gill v. OPM on behalf of eight married couples and three surviving spouses from Massachusetts who have been denied federal rights and benefits available to spouses, but denied to them because DOMA, a federal law adopted in 1996, defines marriage solely as the union of a man and a woman. In July 2009, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts filed its own suit challenging the federal government’s requirement that in operating federally-funded programs, including Medicaid and the administration of veterans’ cemeteries, the state must treat some of its married citizens differently than others. There over 1,000 rights, benefits and responsibilities tied to marriage under federal law, including Social Security survivors' benefits, family and medical leave, equal compensation as federal employees, and immigration rights, among others.

The state had argued the law denied benefits such as Medicaid to gay married couples in Massachusetts, where same-sex unions have been legal since 2004.

Tauro agreed, and said the act forces Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens.

The Justice Department argued the federal government has the right to set eligibility requirements for federal benefits — including requiring that those benefits only go to couples in marriages between a man and a woman.

The decision only invalidates DOMA for the jurisdictions located within the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. DOMA will only be fully invalidated through repeal by Congress or the Department of Justice continues the appeal process through to a hearing before the Supreme Court.

A bill is currently pending in the House of Representatives that would repeal DOMA and respect state marriages by providing federal protections for married same-sex couples. The Respect for Marriage Act would ensure that, once the federal government recognizes the marriage of a same-sex couple, it would continue to recognize that marriage even if the couple moved to another state that would not have allowed the couple to marry in the first place. —Tim Moran