Federal Court Hears DOMA Challenge

U.S. district court judge Joseph Tauro is not your typical federal judge. He wears his black robe wide open so you can see his blue shirt and boldly striped tie. He stands throughout the proceeding at a lectern, studying the attorneys before him as intently as a line judge might do at Wimbledon.

He’s also not your typical Nixon appointee. He is, at 79, the only one still serving in an active role on the federal district court bench. He’s unusually informal — beckoning the courtroom audience to give him a heartfelt “Good morning” in return for his own greeting.

But gay legal activists feel they got a good hearing from Judge Tauro Thursday, in the first federal district court hearing to examine the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

The case was Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, a lawsuit brought by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, the group that won the landmark decision in 2003 that enables same-sex couples in Massachusetts to obtain marriage licenses just as straight couples do.

GLAD’s lawsuit is a very precise attack on DOMA, targeting just one section of the law — Section 3 — that limits the definition of marriage, for all federal purposes, to straight couples only.

GLAD attorney Mary Bonauto told Tauro that DOMA constitutes a “classic equal protection” violation.

“It takes one class of married people in the commonwealth,” she said, “and divides it into two.” And one class, same-sex couples, she said, is “utterly disregarded” under federal law.