Edited excerpts from the opinion follow. Especially noteworthy is the court's treatment of the federalism issue. You don't often see an opinion relying on both gay rights and federalism arguments.
"[The federal Defense of Marriage Act]DOMA was enacted with strong majorities in both Houses and signed into law by President Clinton. The entire statute,. . . must--having only two operative paragraphs--be one of the shortest major enactments in recent history. Section 3 of DOMA, 1 U.S.C. § 7, defines "marriage" for purposes of federal law:
In
determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or
interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United
States, the word "marriage" means only a legal union between one man and one
woman as husband and wife, and the word "spouse" refers only to a person of the
opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
Section 2, which is not at issue here, absolves states
from recognizing same-sex marriages solemnized in other
states. DOMA
does not formally invalidate same-sex marriages in states that permit them, but
its adverse consequences for such a choice are considerable. Notably, it
prevents same-sex married couples from filing joint federal tax returns, which
can lessen tax burdens, see 26
U.S.C. § 1(a)-(c), and prevents the surviving spouse of a same-sex marriage
from collecting Social Security survivor benefits, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 402(f), (i).
DOMA also leaves federal employees unable to share their health insurance and
certain other medical benefits with same-sex spouses.
DOMA
affects a thousand or more generic cross-references to marriage in myriad
federal laws. In most cases, the changes operate to the disadvantage of same-sex
married couples in the half dozen or so states that permit same-sex marriage.
The number of couples thus affected is estimated at more than
100,000.
Further, DOMA has potentially serious adverse
consequences, hereafter described, for states that choose to legalize same-sex
marriage.
In
Gill v. OPM, No. 10-2207, seven same-sex
couples married in Massachusetts and three surviving spouses of such marriages
brought suit in federal district court to enjoin pertinent federal agencies and
officials from enforcing DOMA to deprive the couples of federal benefits
available to opposite-sex married couples in Massachusetts. The Commonwealth
brought a companion case, Massachusetts v. DHHS, No. 10-2204, concerned that DOMA
will revoke federal funding for programs tied to DOMA's opposite-sex marriage
definition--such as Massachusetts' state Medicaid program and veterans'
cemeteries."