Could same-sex marriage here be the wedge to crack the federal Defense of Marriage law?

Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders goes into US District Court in Boston this morning for arguments on the suit it brought on behalf of 28 present and former federal employees and spouses, who argue that the federal law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman violates their constitutional rights.

Among the arguments by the 28 - who include the spouse of the late US Rep. Gerry Studds - is the existence of the right of same-sex couples in Massachusetts to marry:

The federal government of the United States has, since its founding and at least until 1996, recognized the exclusive authority every state possesses, as an essential part of its sovereignty, to determine the civil status and capacities of all its inhabitants, including the absolute right to prescribe the conditions upon which the marriage relation between its own citizens shall be created.

Throughout history and at least until 1996, the United States has consistently deferred to the sovereignty of the States when the marital status of an individual has been used as a marker of eligibility or access to some benefit, right, or responsibility identified by the federal government.

Congress did not "protect" state sovereignty in enacting DOMA, since it dishonored the sovereignty of the states that license or recognize marriages of same-sex couples.

The suit also argues that the law violates the couples's rights to equal protection and makes them commit perjury on federal forms by forcing them to declare themselves as single, when they are actually married. The suit notes that Studds's spouse, Dean Hara, "received and carried the official Congressional Spouse Photo
Identification card listing him as the spouse of Congressman Studds, 10th MA, which was issued by the Sergeant at Arms of the U.S. House of Representatives in January 1995." The two married in 2004, not long after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court legalized same-sex marriage.

In its motion to dismiss the case, the government says DOMA does not prevent states from recognizing same-sex marriages and that courts have held that federal benefits are not guaranteed by the Constitution, so the government can restrict them:

DOMA does not preclude States from recognizing same-sex marriage. It does not rely on any classifications a federal court has recognized as suspect under existing precedent. Nor have federal courts found a fundamental right to the marriage-based federal benefits it restricts. Accordingly, DOMA need not be reviewed with heightened scrutiny. Properly understood, the right at issue in this case is not the right to marry (plaintiffs have married in Massachusetts), but a right to receive certain federal benefits on the basis of marriage. No court has found such a right to federal benefits to be fundamental – and the federal courts that have considered the question in the context of DOMA itself have rejected such a claim. Likewise, the First Circuit has held that sexual orientation is not a suspect classification, and heightened scrutiny is not appropriate on that basis.

Via Mike Ball.