The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York ruled today that Section 3 of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) is unconstitutional because it discriminates against married same-sex couples. Attorney's for 83-year-old lesbian Edith Windsor, sucessfully argued that DOMA violates same-sex couples’ right to equal protection under the U.S. Constitution and should be more closely scrutinized because it constitutes a sweeping intrusion into the States’ regulation of marriage. The Court agreed today, holding that DOMA is subject to intermediate scrutiny because it discriminates based on sexual orientation, and that DOMA’s defenders did not establish a sufficiently strong federal interest in DOMA’s rejection of same-sex marriages to pass constitutional muster. The Court observed that DOMA’s intrusion into the realm of State regulation, an argument we urged the Court adopt, was cause “to look upon Section 3 of DOMA with a cold eye.”

The court ruled against Section 3 of DOMA on the basis that it violates equal protection under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The majority opinion came from Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs and Judge Christopher Droney.

"DOMA’s classification of same-sex spouses was not substantially related to an important government interest," the decision states. "Accordingly, we hold that Section 3 of DOMA violates equal protection and is therefore unconstitutional."

The plaintiff in the case, which was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, is 83-year-old lesbian Edith Windsor, who had to pay $363,000 in 2009 upon the death of her spouse, Thea Spyer, because DOMA prohibits the federal recognition of same-sex marriage.

New York State Attorney General Schneiderman, along with the Attorneys General of Vermont and Connecticut filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that DOMA violates same-sex couples´ right to equal protection under the U.S. Constitution and should be more closely scrutinized because it constitutes a sweeping intrusion into the States’ regulation of marriage. In a statement Schneiderman reacted by saying:

"I am pleased that the court recognized that the federal Defense of Marriage Act lacks an adequate justification and violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. As we argued in our brief in this case, the court examined the proposed justifications for the statute with special care, both because the statute burdens gay and lesbian married couples, and because it intrudes on the traditional role of states in defining marriage. The enactment of the Marriage Equality Act further cements our state’s position on this critical civil rights issue."

New York State Assembly Member O’Donnell who was a primary sponsor of New York States Marriage Equality act in 2011 said about the Federal court ruling:

"The Defense of Marriage Act is a lingering remnant of hatred and discrimination in the United States, and it has no place in our society. Today, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the validity of this principle and struck a resounding blow for the idea that all Americans deserve equal rights, not just a select few."

The decision means seven federal courts have now ruled that DOMA is unconstitutional at a time when cases challenging the anti-gay law are pending for consideration before the U.S. Supreme Court. The Second Circuit is also the second appeals court to strike down DOMA. The First Circuit ruled against the law in May.

In addition to the ruling against DOMA, the judges determined that DOMA should be subject to heightened scrutiny, or a greater assumption that the law is unconstitutional, because, among other reasons, gays and lesbians have faced a history of discrimination and have a distinguishing characteristic from others. The Second Circuit is the first appeals court to determine that DOMA should be subject to the level of review.

The decision wasn’t unanimous. Judge Chester Straub issued a dissenting opinion saying he dissents in part and concurs in part, saying he disagrees “with the majority’s holding that DOMA is unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee.” — Staff

The study, Religious Affiliation, Internalized Homophobia, and Mental Health in Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals will be published in a forthcoming issue of the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry and can be accessed here.