middleagedgamer
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2008
- Messages
- 1,363
- Reaction score
- 72
- Location
- Earth
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
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.
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
VICTORY!
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?
If the Supreme Court strikes down Perry, they will have to provide a good reason for doing so.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.
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.what i find interesting is the citation of the 10th amendment.... be interesing to see where that leads.
Most federal laws are still constitutional. The commerce clause is pretty broad, not just the necessary and proper clause.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
Did you even read the rest of the damned thread?They left it to states. State votes in marriage has always favored marriage is one man and one woman
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.
Did you even read the rest of the damned thread?
There is no excuse for that kind of stupidity!
Dumbass.
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.
No, it shows that gay marriage has no business being held to the tyranny of the majority.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
First of all, what makes you think it will OBVIOUSLY come down to him?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.
Again, this case will be a companion case to Perry v. Schwarzenegger.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.
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
Such as...?
That SCOTUS actually rules this way.
I basically give it dead even odds. 5-4 or 4-5. The usual party lines.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?