Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

[Slartibartfast]

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]

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/07/08/us/AP-US-Gay-Marriage-Benefits.html?_r=2&ref=news



All I can say is :applaud

Wow, I didn't even know DOMA had been challenged in federal court yet. I hope that on a possible appeal the ruling is upheld and DOMA gets dumped permanently. It's clearly in violation of Full Faith and Credit.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Excellent, excellent stuff

 

[Dezaad]

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/07/08/us/AP-US-Gay-Marriage-Benefits.html?_r=2&ref=news



All I can say is :applaud

I can only imagine how this is going to NOT be counted as a states rights issue to gay marriage opponents.

 

[teamosil]

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]

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]

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!)

 

[teamosil]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Moderator's Warning:

Threads merged

 

[Dezaad]

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]

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

 

[Jerry]

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/07/08/us/AP-US-Gay-Marriage-Benefits.html?_r=2&ref=news



All I can say is :applaud

A District Judge.....yeeaahhh...wake me up after SCOTUS rules.

 

[TurtleDude]

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]

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.

 

[Phoenix]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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).