The federal appeals court decision ruling the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional makes a powerful argument against the law by calling the denial of federal benefits to married gay and lesbian couples what it is: Discrimination.

It’s about time.

This is something Vermont recognized more than a decade ago with the passage of the first- in- thenation civil unions law in 2000, and the marriage equality law in 2009.

The impetus for change in Vermont was the 1999 state Supreme Court ruling that the Vermont Constitution entitled same-sex couples “to the same benefits and protections afforded by Vermont law to married opposite-sex couples.”

The Obama administration also has recognized the untenable nature of the law, known as DOMA, by deciding not to defend the law against court challenges. The Obama administration merely seeks to keep up with society’s evolving recognition that gay and lesbian couples deserve the same rights and benefits available to all Americans.

DOMA defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. That means gay and lesbian couples married in states where such unions are recognized, such as Vermont, have no access to a spouse’s federal benefits such as Social Security, health insurance and pensions.

In a unanimous ruling, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the law goes against precedents set by rulings that protect minorities and other protected groups from discrimination.

The appeals court decision upholds a 2010 ruling by a federal judge in Massachusetts who declared DOMA unconstitutional because it denied benefits to gay and lesbian couples that were available to others — a violation of the Constitution’s equal protection clause.

The New York Times reports this is the first case in which a federal court of appeals has ruled DOMA unconstitutional. The case involving same-sex couples married in Massachusetts and surviving spouses of same-sex marriages who were denied federal benefits.

Circuit Judge Michael Boudin wrote in the decision, “Under current Supreme Court authority, Congress’ denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married in Massachusetts has not been adequately supported by any permissible federal interest.”

The clear message of the ruling is that the federal government has no business passing judgment on a marriage recognized by a state based on nothing more than the gender of the people involved in the union. The federal government has no business enforcing discrimination.

— Burlington (Vt.) Free Press