Update: Connecticut District Court Continues Trend of Finding DOMA Unconstitutional

Tuesday, the U.S. District Court of Connecticut joined the Northern District of California, the Southern District of New York, and the First Circuit in holding that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage for the purposes of federal law as between one man and one woman, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

In Pedersen v. OPM, Judge Vanessa L. Bryant concluded that gays and lesbians are entitled to significant constitutional protection because of the history of discrimination against them. She rejected arguments made by a group of Republican leaders of the House of Representatives, who have taken up defending DOMA in the courts after the Department of Justice refused to do so. The Pedersen case involved six same-sex couples and a widower, all of whom had been married legally under the laws of Connecticut, Vermont and New Hampshire, and were denied federal benefits. Judge Bryant declined to apply “heightened scrutiny” to Section 3, because the provision could not survive “under even the most deferential level of scrutiny.”

This decision continues a recent string of decisions striking down Section 3 of DOMA, that began with the Northern District of California’s ruling in Golinski v. OPM in February and continued with the First Circuit’s ruling in Gill v. OPM and the Southern District of New York’s ruling in Windsor v. OPM, both in June. This new ruling, in addition to the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Perry v. Brown, that struck down Proposition 8, the California state constitution’s ban on same-sex marriage, adds to the growing consensus that same sex marriage restrictions violate the federal constitution.

The Supreme Court may address these issues in the coming term, as it has already been asked to review the First Circuit’s decision striking down Section 3 of DOMA and was just asked to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Perry.