• 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!

Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

tacomancer

Big Scary Liberal
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
39,765
Reaction score
20,599
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/07/08/us/AP-US-Gay-Marriage-Benefits.html?_r=2&ref=news

BOSTON (AP) -- The federal law banning gay marriage is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define the institution and therefore denies married gay couples some federal benefits, a federal judge ruled Thursday in Boston.
U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro ruled in favor of gay couples' rights in two separate challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, a 1996 law that the Obama administration has argued for repealing. The rulings apply to Massachusetts but could have broader implications if they're upheld on appeal.
All I can say is :applaud
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,114
Reaction score
32,327
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

teamosil

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
6,623
Reaction score
2,226
Location
San Francisco
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Wow. That is awesome. Although, the premise on which the ruling is based would not apply to state-level gay marriage ban. The real silver bullet is going to be a ruling on whether it violates equal protection. If so, then that's the game.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
243,273
Reaction score
73,267
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Wow. That is awesome. Although, the premise on which the ruling is based would not apply to state-level gay marriage ban. The real silver bullet is going to be a ruling on whether it violates equal protection. If so, then that's the game.
a state can clearly refuse to recognize gay marriage just as NYC or Chicago does not recognize my Ohio issued CCW permit

Tauro is a very well respected judge-I suspect his opinion will be given much respect
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,114
Reaction score
32,327
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
a state can clearly refuse to recognize gay marriage just as NYC or Chicago does not recognize my Ohio issued CCW permit

Tauro is a very well respected judge-I suspect his opinion will be given much respect
Not sure I agree, seeing as how marriage certificates have much more far-reaching effects than CCW permits.

@TheAdvocateMag

Update: Prop. 8 decision -- could, emphasize, could -- come down at 6pm, no official confirmation yet. Pls stay tuned ...... #prop8 9 minutes ago via web
Possible double-whammy today. Rumors appear to be untrue. No decision on Prop 8 today. (but soon!)
 
Last edited:

teamosil

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
6,623
Reaction score
2,226
Location
San Francisco
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
a state can clearly refuse to recognize gay marriage just as NYC or Chicago does not recognize my Ohio issued CCW permit
A state cannot refuse to recognize marriages if that is a violation of equal protection. It's the same argument as in Loving v Virginia.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

BOSTON — The federal law banning gay marriage is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define the institution and therefore denies married gay couples some federal benefits, a federal judge ruled Thursday in Boston.



U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro ruled in favor of gay couples' rights in two separate challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, a 1996 law that the Obama administration has argued for repealing. The rulings apply to Massachusetts but could have broader implications if they're upheld on appeal.
And that's the beginning of the end, for a law that was based more on hatred than on facts.

Open your door, step outside, and take a good whiff of the air. It smells like America today.

Article is here.
 

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
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

The federal law banning gay marriage is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define the institution
It ruled in favor of a state's right to define marriage, which means state's like mine who ban it have every right to do so.
 

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
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

Also, from another article from FoxNews on the same thing FOXNews.com - U.S. Judge Rules Federal Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional
The rulings apply to Massachusetts but could have broader implications if they're upheld on appeal.
This is a federal judge, and the ruling is by a Massachusetts court and only applies in that state. Honestly it doesn't surprise me that the courts Massachusetts would rule this way. DOMA is still law. If anything, this ruling is a good thing for states rights and would render Prop 8 in California legal (because a state by popular vote constitutionally defined marriage as a union between a man and woman).
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
106,261
Reaction score
50,276
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Moderator's Warning:
Threads merged
 

Dezaad

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
5,058
Reaction score
2,424
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

The federal law banning gay marriage is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define the institution
It ruled in favor of a state's right to define marriage, which means state's like mine who ban it have every right to do so.
That's not what this ruling says. It simply says the Federal Govt would have no basis to interfere if the individual State chooses to. That is different than it saying those states have done a morally neutral thing, which is what your wording implies.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
243,273
Reaction score
73,267
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
A state cannot refuse to recognize marriages if that is a violation of equal protection. It's the same argument as in Loving v Virginia.
I suspect we will have to wait and see

gay marriage raises interesting questions concerning objective prohibitions versus subjective concepts of attraction. EP is not clear cut

gay men can marry women. that a gay man might not find a woman attractive (then again did Anna Nicole Smith find that old geezer attractive) gets into some really interesting questions
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
243,273
Reaction score
73,267
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
A District Judge.....yeeaahhh...wake me up after SCOTUS rules.
Tauro has a pretty good rep. He is the last Nixon appointee not in senior status. He was a US attorney and is well respected.

the real issue is what will the Circuit Court do. Some judges tend to get reversed, some tend to be cited by other judges
 

Phoenix

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
1,808
Reaction score
622
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
A state cannot refuse to recognize marriages if that is a violation of equal protection. It's the same argument as in Loving v Virginia.
I believe standing could exist for equal protection claims.
I don't believe you can use Loving as precedent because in the Loving case marriage was a criminal act and a jailable offense. That is not the case with current same sex marriage.
The water is further muddied by the fact that the federal government issues no marriage licenses. So they do not deny marriage to anyone. Effectively DOMA is a statement about who they will provide benefits for.
If it is going to be unfair for the government to deny benefits to people based on relationship status to the employed, then they essentially have to provide benefits to the employed and (X) number of people he wants on his insurance regardless of relationship status to the employed.
 
Last edited:

Phoenix

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
1,808
Reaction score
622
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Not sure I agree, seeing as how marriage certificates have much more far-reaching effects than CCW permits.
The concept is the same. If the state's laws do not coincide with another state's law, they do not have to recognize the document as valid.
 

Jerry

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,124
Reaction score
15,258
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Tauro has a pretty good rep. He is the last Nixon appointee not in senior status. He was a US attorney and is well respected.

the real issue is what will the Circuit Court do. Some judges tend to get reversed, some tend to be cited by other judges
I think you're right, but I also trust in the losing side to seek appeals and injunctions until, one day, the issue is ruled on by SCOTUS.
 

peepnklown

Frankernaut
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
607
Reaction score
177
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

The state and federal/national government should get out of the marriage business.
It should be all about civil unions for all aka contracts.
 

Jerry

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,124
Reaction score
15,258
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

The state and federal/national government should get out of the marriage business.
It should be all about civil unions for all aka contracts.
Yeah see that doesn't make any sense.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The concept is the same. If the state's laws do not coincide with another state's law, they do not have to recognize the document as valid.
Wrong.

And welcome to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution:

Article IV - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
If Massachusetts says Bill and Bob are married, then California, Hawaii, and Kansas have to treat that marriages as no less valid than any marriage between a man and a woman in their state.

PERIOD.

To permit any state to treat any other state's marriage differently based on the sex of the pair requires a Constitutional amendment.
 

Jerry

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,124
Reaction score
15,258
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Wrong.

And welcome to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution:



If Massachusetts says Bill and Bob are married, then California, Hawaii, and Kansas have to treat that marriages as no less valid than any marriage between a man and a woman in their state.

PERIOD.

To permit any state to treat any other state's marriage differently based on the sex of the pair requires a Constitutional amendment.
Then they have to treat my CCW the same, also.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Then they have to treat my CCW the same, also.
I deliberately deleted a comment I made to that effect because I didn't want to get side tracked.

You're 100% correct.

A CCW permit is no different than state issued driver's licences.
 

peepnklown

Frankernaut
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
607
Reaction score
177
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

Yeah see that doesn't make any sense.
It’s very simple.
It’s about legal vs. tradition.
The state would deal with the civil (contractual, testamentary, and mandatory) aspects only.
The marriage part is only customary, traditional or religious and is up the people involved, their families and their community (be it church or whatever group).
 
Top Bottom