• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Federal Judge declares part of DOMA unconstitutional

Engyo

Prince of Dorkness!
Judge: U.S. gay marriage ban unconstitutional
By DENISE LAVOIE
ASSOCIATED PRESS

July 8, 2010, 4:33PM

BOSTON — A U.S. judge in Boston has ruled that a federal gay marriage ban is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define marriage.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro on Thursday ruled in favor of gay couples’ rights in two separate challenges to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA.

The state had argued the law denied benefits such as Medicaid to gay married couples in Massachusetts, where same-sex unions have been legal since 2004.

Tauro agreed, and said the act forces Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens.

“The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state, and in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment. For that reason, the statute is invalid,” Tauro wrote in a ruling in a lawsuit filed by Attorney General Martha Coakley.

Ruling in a separate case filed by Gays & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, Tauro found that DOMA violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

“We’ve maintained from the very beginning that there was absolutely no basis for this law treating one class of married Massachusetts couples different from everybody else and the court has recognized that,” said Gary Buseck, GLAD’s legal director.

The Justice Department argued the federal government has the right to set eligibility requirements for federal benefits — including requiring that those benefits only go to couples in marriages between a man and a woman.

The law was enacted by Congress in 1996 when it appeared Hawaii would soon legalize same-sex marriage and opponents worried that other states would be forced to recognize such marriages. The lawsuit challenges only the portion of the law that prevents the federal government from affording pension and other benefits to same-sex couples.

Since then, five states and the District of Columbia have legalized gay marriage.

Judge: Gay marriage ban unconstitutional | National | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Very, very interesting. It's esoteric, abstruse Constitutional Law, having to do with the relationship between the states and the federal government. I smell certiorari.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Very, very interesting. It's esoteric, abstruse Constitutional Law, having to do with the relationship between the states and the federal government. I smell certiorari.

It doesn't look so abstruse to me....just the old enumerated powers argument (which I like).
But will it be revisited? Where does Obama stand?
 

Duck

Well-Known Member
That's assuming the fed fights it.

If Obama is really against the law, as this article Judge declares US gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional - Local News Updates - MetroDesk - The Boston Globe says, then this might be the end if it.

Yeah, Obama is against the law, and was against it while his justice department likened gay marriage to incest and pedophilia (and I think it was incestuous pedophilia to boot) in a different challenge to DOMA last year. So, yeah, this will be defended. the 'fierce advocate' will no doubt claim that his administration MUST defend the law even if POTUS thinks it is discriminatory, as is the case with DADT. This of course despite ignoring other american laws.
 

Tarheeler

Argumentative Curmudgeon
Premium Member
Yeah, Obama is against the law, and was against it while his justice department likened gay marriage to incest and pedophilia (and I think it was incestuous pedophilia to boot) in a different challenge to DOMA last year. So, yeah, this will be defended. the 'fierce advocate' will no doubt claim that his administration MUST defend the law even if POTUS thinks it is discriminatory, as is the case with DADT. This of course despite ignoring other american laws.

You're probably right. Obama, just like every other politician, has proven himself to be a lying hypocrict.

But hey, Americans who want to see actual equality can always hope.

Even if it is fought, however, the ruling was based (at least in part) on sound precedent. Loving v. Virginia has already established that marriage is a covered activity under the both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th. It's only a matter of time before same-sex marriages are included in that protection.
 

Mathematician

Reason, and reason again
He claims to be in favor of repealing it, but has made no moves to encourage its repeal, and his Justice Department defends it at every opportunity, sometimes in the most offensive terms.

Blame the Democrats in Congress in this example. Other than the budget where he's intended to take part in the process, the president can only recommend legislation to his party.
 

Tarheeler

Argumentative Curmudgeon
Premium Member
Blame the Democrats in Congress in this example. Other than the budget where he's intended to take part in the process, the president can only recommend legislation to his party.

He still administers the agencies, which is no small matter. Through the department heads, who work directly for him and can be fired for political reasons, he still has considerable power in the government.
 

Engyo

Prince of Dorkness!
He still administers the agencies, which is no small matter. Through the department heads, who work directly for him and can be fired for political reasons, he still has considerable power in the government.
Yes, but in this case, he is required to defend laws that are legally on the books, as DOMA is; whether or not he or his party agree with it in principle, or want it struck down.
 

Wandered Off

Sporadic Driveby Member
I'm happy it's unconstitutional, but I don't like the 10th Amendment angle. Just because the people curbing your rights live closer is not any comfort. Human rights should not be subject to state voter whim. IMO, it should be unconstitutional as a violation of the equal protection clause - end of story. But I'm not a lawyer...
 

Viinasu

New Member
yay! i don't get why homosexuals can't get married already, why does the government always take so long? and more people are for gay marriage than against it... >.<
 

Tarheeler

Argumentative Curmudgeon
Premium Member
Yes, but in this case, he is required to defend laws that are legally on the books, as DOMA is; whether or not he or his party agree with it in principle, or want it struck down.

No, he's not. Presidents consistently use the power of their branch to ignore laws they disagree with. Whether it's through funding, executive orders, signing statements, or simple instructions to department heads, the president is the head of the executive branch and can set his own agenda for a large part of it.

Short of the Congress or the Supreme Court forcing his hand, he can ignore it if he chooses to. This is the danger of the idea of three-branch constitutional interpretation.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
A good ruling would have found against DOMA based on the 14th amendment and wouldn't give the states the opportunity to discriminate in the same way.

That seems weaker, since the 14th would incorporate no amendments clearly permitting gay marriage. But then I don't know what I'm talking about.
 
Top