• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional by Federal Judge!

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I am SHOCKED that this hasn't been posted already! It's about a week old!

Federal Court Rules DOMA Sec. 3 Violates Equal Protection - Poliglot

U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro, appointed to the federal bench in 1972, ruled this afternoon in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act violates the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. A companion decision in Massachusetts v. U.S. Dep't of Health and Human Services also was issued, with Tauro finding that DOMA also violates the Tenth Amendment and the Spending Clause of the Constitution.

...

The decisions appear to be a broad validation of Massachusetts and GLAD's arguments and are certain to set up a more difficult appeal than had Judge Tauro only found one ground to strike down Section 3.

...

Section 2, which purports to give states the authority to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages legally entered into in other states, is not at issue in either of the cases.

....

As to why the Fifth Amendment is implicated, it is how the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is applied to the federal government. Sometimes referred to as "reverse incorporation," it is the opposite of incorporation -- or application -- of the Bill of Rights to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Incorporation was the reason why the U.S. Supreme Court found the Fourteenth Amendment to require that the Second Amendment be applied to the states in last week's decision regarding Chicago's gun law.

It would be very unlikely that the federal government would not appeal the ruling in this case. GLAD's Mary Bonauto concurred on a conference call following the ruling: "I fully expect the government will appeal." Such a move, however, is likely to subject President Obama to criticism from some quarters.
VICTORY!
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,259
Reaction score
32,380
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
If I understand it correctly, the ruling only applies in Mass. However, the ruling will lend strength to challenges of DOMA in other states and at higher federal levels.

(and it's only part of DOMA)
You don't really understand the big picture, do you?

This case is one of whether or not the federal government can disagree with the state's definition of marriage. Now, at first glance, it means that the feds can still refuse to recognize gay marriages in states that don't have them, such as Texas and Mississippi, but Perry v. Schwarzenegger is going to put a stop to THAT!

Perry was only about state level recognition of gay marriage. Once states are required to recognize gay marriage, then Gill will force the federal government to agree with that definition.

Do you see the brilliance, now?
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,259
Reaction score
32,380
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You don't really understand the big picture, do you?

This case is one of whether or not the federal government can disagree with the state's definition of marriage. Now, at first glance, it means that the feds can still refuse to recognize gay marriages in states that don't have them, such as Texas and Mississippi, but Perry v. Schwarzenegger is going to put a stop to THAT!

Perry was only about state level recognition of gay marriage. Once states are required to recognize gay marriage, then Gill will force the federal government to agree with that definition.

Do you see the brilliance, now?
This banks on Perry v. Schwarzenegger not being shot down by SCOTUS in a 5-4 decision.

Declaring victory is premature. So far all that we've won is a battle. Still a war to win.
 

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
This banks on Perry v. Schwarzenegger not being shot down by SCOTUS in a 5-4 decision.

Declaring victory is premature. So far all that we've won is a battle. Still a war to win.
If the Supreme Court strikes down Perry, they will have to provide a good reason for doing so.

So far, no good reason has been said by anyone for banning gay marriage... anytime. Even with Baker v. Nelson, the Supreme Court had to refuse to even hear the case, "for want of a substantial federal question."
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
63,904
Reaction score
32,560
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
what i find interesting is the citation of the 10th amendment.... be interesing to see where that leads.


tell ya'll what: i will gladly trade you homosexual marriage in return for an actual application of the 10th Amendment to all Federal Law :D :D :D
 

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
what i find interesting is the citation of the 10th amendment.... be interesing to see where that leads.
In 1786, the anti-federalists were concerned that the necessary and proper clause would give the federal government limitless powers. They put the tenth amendment in there to ensure that only things that Congress was directly given the power to do - and things directly related to them - would be constitutional on a federal level.

Since the Constitution does not give Congress the power to make marriage and divorce laws, they have to accept the state's definition of marriage, according to GLAAD.

tell ya'll what: i will gladly trade you homosexual marriage in return for an actual application of the 10th Amendment to all Federal Law :D :D :D
Most federal laws are still constitutional. The commerce clause is pretty broad, not just the necessary and proper clause.

Think about it: Can you name me ONE company that operates ENTIRELY within a state? Remember, it affects interstate commerce if the company so much as uses a sheet of paper that is from a tree that was cut down from out-of-state.
 

ptif219

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
13,156
Reaction score
1,038
Location
melbourne florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
They left it to states. State votes in marriage has always favored marriage is one man and one woman
 

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
They left it to states. State votes in marriage has always favored marriage is one man and one woman
Did you even read the rest of the damned thread?

There is no excuse for that kind of stupidity!

Dumbass.
 

Orion

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,083
Reaction score
3,918
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
As someone mentioned elsewhere... I am really only interested in what SCOTUS has to say at this point. Though I'll admit this is a step in the right direction.
 

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
As someone mentioned elsewhere... I am really only interested in what SCOTUS has to say at this point. Though I'll admit this is a step in the right direction.
True, true. Of course, this is likely going to reach the Supreme Court, where I hope that they'll see that DOMA is merely discriminatory.
 

WilliamJB

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
314
Reaction score
59
Location
Albany, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
It's a good decision, no question about it. As for the broader fight for LGBT rights, Perry still keeps me up at night. If it goes to the SCOTUS, I really don't think we're going to win. It'll obviously all come down to Kennedy and I don't think he has it in him to vote to overturn the marriage "protection" laws and amendments passed by so many states.

It's just too early. If we go to the SCOTUS now, it'll be another Bowers. I think our best bet is to keep chipping away at the state level. We'll get New York and New Jersey within 5 years, and if SSM gets on the ballot in CA in 2012, I think we've got a good shot there too.
 

ptif219

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
13,156
Reaction score
1,038
Location
melbourne florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Did you even read the rest of the damned thread?

There is no excuse for that kind of stupidity!

Dumbass.
Yes and what I said is truth it puts the responsibility back where it belongs to the states
 
Last edited:

Alex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,963
Reaction score
855
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It would also allow state courts to weigh in on the issue, as they are a part of the legal process. For example, the Constitution of Iowa specifically calls for, "The supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction only in cases in chancery, and shall constitute a court for the correction of errors at law, under such restrictions as the general assembly may, by law, prescribe"

The bold part would allow the Iowa Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage to remain in effect.
 

ptif219

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
13,156
Reaction score
1,038
Location
melbourne florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
It would also allow state courts to weigh in on the issue, as they are a part of the legal process. For example, the Constitution of Iowa specifically calls for, "The supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction only in cases in chancery, and shall constitute a court for the correction of errors at law, under such restrictions as the general assembly may, by law, prescribe"

The bold part would allow the Iowa Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage to remain in effect.
Thats right voter don't matter but 5% of thepopulation does. If it was legitimate you could pass it through the voters the way our system is set up to do. You have to use exteme activist judges shows you have no credibility
 

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Thats right voter don't matter but 5% of thepopulation does. If it was legitimate you could pass it through the voters the way our system is set up to do. You have to use exteme activist judges shows you have no credibility
No, it shows that gay marriage has no business being held to the tyranny of the majority.

Also, yes, THIS case says that Congress has no business disagreeing with the state's definition of marriage. However, Perry v. Schwarzenegger is poised to rule that even the states have no business denying marriage to same-sex couples. These two cases will be a one-two punch that legalizes gay marriage across the board.

Also,
It'll obviously all come down to Kennedy and I don't think he has it in him to vote to overturn the marriage "protection" laws and amendments passed by so many states.
First of all, what makes you think it will OBVIOUSLY come down to him?

Second, Kennedy is a swing vote, yes, and he is 55% conservative, yes, but one of the few things he has been consistently liberal on is expanding constitutional principals to protect the LGBT community.

Anthony Kennedy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you see that? Huh? Huh? Do you see it?
 

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,222
Reaction score
14,219
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
This ruling is a victory for state's rights. From my understanding of it, they didn't rule DOMA "unconstitutional" because it federally defines marriage, they said it was unconstitutional because it prevent state's from doing so.
 

Alex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,963
Reaction score
855
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The legal system of Iowa does not have a referendum clause to their constitution, but it has a clause giving the power of judicial review to the state Supreme Court. That constitution was decided democratically. Judicial activism most certainly does not exist in this case, as the court is explicitly given the power of review.

And no, voters do not matter on certain issues, in certain areas, when it comes to statute. We do not live in a strict democracy, we live in a constitutional democracy. The 50 + 1 vote has limits.
 

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
This ruling is a victory for state's rights. From my understanding of it, they didn't rule DOMA "unconstitutional" because it federally defines marriage, they said it was unconstitutional because it prevent state's from doing so.
Again, this case will be a companion case to Perry v. Schwarzenegger.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Isn't it just ridiculous that so much money, time and angst is spent trying to prevent two people who love each other to get married? Times change. The time has come, for heaven's sake.
 

ptif219

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
13,156
Reaction score
1,038
Location
melbourne florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
No, it shows that gay marriage has no business being held to the tyranny of the majority.

Also, yes, THIS case says that Congress has no business disagreeing with the state's definition of marriage. However, Perry v. Schwarzenegger is poised to rule that even the states have no business denying marriage to same-sex couples. These two cases will be a one-two punch that legalizes gay marriage across the board.

Also,

First of all, what makes you think it will OBVIOUSLY come down to him?

Second, Kennedy is a swing vote, yes, and he is 55% conservative, yes, but one of the few things he has been consistently liberal on is expanding constitutional principals to protect the LGBT community.

Anthony Kennedy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you see that? Huh? Huh? Do you see it?
You make a lot of assumptions
 

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Top Bottom