[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/us/09marriage.html?_r=1[/url]
[release]A federal judge in Massachusetts on Thursday found that a law barring the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, ruling that gay and lesbian couples deserve the same federal benefits as heterosexual couples.
Judge Joseph L. Tauro of United States District Court in Boston sided with the plaintiffs in two separate cases brought by the state attorney general and a gay-rights group.
Although legal experts disagreed over how the rulings would fare on appeal, the judge’s decisions were nonetheless sure to further inflame the nationwide debate over same-sex marriage and gay rights.
Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, said that federal officials were reviewing the decision and had no further comment. But lawyers for the plaintiffs said they fully expected the Obama administration to appeal. An appeal would be heard by the First Circuit, which also includes Rhode Island, Maine and New Hampshire.
In the case brought by Attorney General Martha Coakley, Judge Tauro found that the 1996 law, known as the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, compels Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens in order to receive federal funds for certain programs.
The other case, brought by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, focused more narrowly on equal protection as applied to a handful of federal benefits. In that case, Judge Tauro agreed that the federal law violated the equal protection clause of the constitution by denying benefits to one class of married couples — gays and lesbians — but not others.
“This court has determined that it is clearly within the authority of the Commonwealth to recognize same-sex marriages among its residents, and to afford those individuals in same-sex marriages any benefits, rights, and privileges to which they are entitled by virtue of their marital status,” Judge Tauro wrote. “The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state.”
Proponents of gay rights embraced the rulings as legal victories.
“Today the court simply affirmed that our country won’t tolerate second-class marriages,” said Mary Bonauto, civil rights project director for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, who argued the case. “This ruling will make a real difference for countless families in Massachusetts.”
Massachusetts has allowed same-sex couples to marry since 2004, and while more than 15,000 have done so, they are denied federal benefits like Social Security survivors’ payments, the right to file taxes jointly and guaranteed leave from work to care for a sick spouse.
In the Coakley case, the judge held that that federal restrictions on funding for states that recognize same-sex marriage violates the Tenth Amendment, the part of the Constitution that declares that rights not explicitly granted to the federal government, or prohibited by the states, belong to the states.
Neither suit challenged a separate provision of the Defense of Marriage Act that says states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. But if the cases make their way to the Supreme Court and are upheld, same-sex couples around the country will be eligible for federal benefits that are now only granted to heterosexual married couples.
Some constitutional scholars said they were surprised by Judge Tauro’s opinions in the two cases.
“What an amazing set of opinions,” said Jack Balkin, a professor at Yale Law School. “No chance they’ll be held up on appeal.”
Professor Balkin, who supports the right to same-sex marriage, said that the opinions ignored the federal government’s longstanding involvement in marriage issues in such areas as welfare, tax policy, healthcare, Social Security and more. The Gill opinion’s application of the Constitution to marriage rights, he said, undercuts the notion that the marriage is not a federal concern.
“These two opinions are at war with themselves,” he said.
The arguments concerning the Tenth Amendment and the spending clause, if upheld, would “take down a wide swath of programs — you can’t even list the number of programs that would be affected,” he said.
By citing the Tenth Amendment and making what is essentially a state’s rights argument, Professor Balkin said that Judge Tauro was “attempting to hoist conservatives by their own petard, by saying, ‘You like the Tenth Amendment? I’ll give you the Tenth Amendment! I’ll strike down DOMA!’”
Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the University of California, Irvine School of Law, was more supportive of the logic of the two opinions, and said they worked together to establish a broad right of marriage for same-sex couples.
“The key issue in this case, and in all litigation about marriage equality for gays and lesbians, is: ‘Does the government have a rational basis for treating same-sex couples differently from heterosexual couples?’ Here, the court says there is no rational basis for treating same-sex couples differently from homosexual couples. Therefore, DOMA is unconstitutional, and conditioning federal funding on compliance with DOMA is unconstitutional,” he said.
A key issue in the fight over the constitutionality of California’s same-sex marriage ban is whether laws restricting gay rights should be held to a tougher standard of review than the “rational basis” test, and so Judge Tauro’s decision takes a different path that would eliminate the need for that line of argument, Professor Chemerinsky said. “There’s no need to get to higher scrutiny if it fails rational basis review,” he said.
He also said that the Tenth Amendment argument, while unusual, was not the key to the cases. “The Tenth Amendment here is a reminder that Congress can act only if there’s Constitutional authority, and as a reminder that states are the ones that generally regulate marriage,” he said. The key to the opinion he said, is this passage laying out the equal protection rights of gay people:
Accordingly, this court finds that DOMA induces the Commonwealth to violate the equal protection rights of its citizens. And so, as DOMA imposes an unconstitutional condition on the receipt of federal funding, this court finds that the statute contravenes a well-established restriction on the exercise of Congress’ spending power. Because the government insists that DOMA is founded in this federal power and no other, this court finds that Congress has exceeded the scope of its authority.
Michael Boldin, the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center, said that he was gratified to see the Amendment get the support of the federal judiciary. He acknowledged that some of the socially conservative members of groups like the Tea Party, while supporting the notion of state’s rights, might be chagrined to see the logic used to support same-sex marriage.
“The question is, is the Tea Party purely conservative, or are they interested in following the Constitution? It’s about liberty — it’s about limiting the federal government,” he said.[/release]
I hope SCOTUS upholds this ruling.
Everything finally looks happy and gay
fuck yeah massachusetts, i love my state.
first state to allow gay marriage, first state to decriminalize weed.
:c00lbert:
:foxnews: [b]TO ARMS![/b] :foxnews:
Awesome.
Let's see what faux news has to say
Fucking good.
:foxnews: [B]BREAKING NEWS, A FEDERAL JUDGE IN MASSACHUSETTS IS SUSPECTED TO BE GAY BECAUSE HE WANTS GAY MARRIAGE. More at 11[/B]. :foxnews:
Great job there judge :waycool:
Good on ya, mate.
Too bad stuff is going in the opposite direction in Texas.
[QUOTE=SamPerson123;23221293]Too bad stuff is going in the opposite direction in Texas.[/QUOTE]
:sigh:
Stuff isn't, it's just the moronic GOP's position. There's no push for laws against it in our state legislature right now, as far as I know. And there probably won't be, after this. If there is, they won't get far. It may be a stupid platform, but most is also blatantly unconstitutional, so it's not much threat.
Massachusetts judge found dead today with a cross branded on his forehead, more at 11
[QUOTE=GoldenGnome;23221365]Massachusetts judge found dead today with a cross branded on his forehead, more at 11[/QUOTE]
When somebody says they hate gays, it doesn't mean religion is involved.
[QUOTE=Dylan Clayton;23221410]When somebody says they hate gays, it doesn't mean religion is involved.[/QUOTE]
Let's start this argument up again, what reason is there to hate gays beyond the bible?
[QUOTE=Dylan Clayton;23221410]When somebody says they hate gays, it doesn't mean religion is involved.[/QUOTE]
most of the time religion IS involved
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyAlt;23218574]fuck yeah massachusetts, i love my state.
first state to allow gay marriage, first state to decriminalize weed.
:c00lbert:[/QUOTE]
taxes
taxes everywhere
<snip>
a step in the right direction.
[QUOTE=Killerjc;23221456]taxes
taxes everywhere[/QUOTE]
"taxachusetts"
not the highest at least, plus a bill that reduces sales tax is on the november ballot.
in the past few years it really keeps going up and down
[QUOTE=Dylan Clayton;23221410]When somebody says they hate gays, it doesn't mean religion is involved.[/QUOTE]
there's no reason to disprove of gay marriage besides religious bigotry
I can't WAIT to see the picket line coming from Westboro!:munch:
[QUOTE=Frazah;23220192]:foxnews: [B]BREAKING NEWS, A FEDERAL JUDGE IN MASSACHUSETTS IS SUSPECTED TO BE GAY BECAUSE HE WANTS GAY MARRIAGE. More at 11[/B]. :foxnews:[/QUOTE]
You didn't overblow this enough.
:foxnews: [b]JUDGE RULES MANDATORY GAY MARRIAGE AND SATANIC EDUCATION IN SCHOOLS, RITUALS TO BE HELD BY GAY SATANIST ABORTIONIST SOCIALISTS, COMMUNISM AROUND THE CORNER?[/B] :foxnews:
[QUOTE=Zeke129;23222870]You didn't overblow this enough.
:foxnews: [b]JUDGE RULES MANDATORY GAY MARRIAGE AND SATANIC EDUCATION IN SCHOOLS, RITUALS TO BE HELD BY GAY SATANIST ABORTIONIST SOCIALISTS, COMMUNISM AROUND THE CORNER?[/B] :foxnews:[/QUOTE]
dude you've got everything ass-backwards
you didn't mention nazis at all
[QUOTE=Doriol;23222941]dude you've got everything ass-backwards
you didn't mention nazis at all[/QUOTE]
Shit, and I guess the satanic thing ended in the 80s. My bad.
Did you guys notice in the article that there is no mention of "family values"? Instead, they're playing the state's rights card since they know they don't have a leg to stand on. Someone tell them that states aren't allowed to violate the constitution.
It kind of makes me glad that the definition of marriage is a federal decision where I live.
A round of applause for Mr. Tauro, gentlemen?
[QUOTE=LCBADs;23223177]A round of applause for Mr. Tauro, gentlemen?[/QUOTE]
Hells Noe! Dem queers is gonna be the end of our God Blessed Country 'Murika! Next yer gonna see devil worshippin' nazi commies gettin' electern preseedent! It's a damn disgrace we's can't allow um to takes our cuntry away frum us.
/sarcasm
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;23223443]Hells Noe! Dem queers is gonna be the end of our God Blessed Country 'Murika! Next yer gonna see devil worshippin' nazi commies gettin' electern preseedent! It's a damn disgrace we's can't allow um to takes our cuntry away frum us.
/sarcasm[/QUOTE](What the hell? I'll join in the hill billy talk.) Well what you missed out on there is we all ready have one of e'm as president. That no good Obama is worshpin the DEVIL and I heard he's not complaning bout these hoemosexuals.
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;23221432]Let's start this argument up again, what reason is there to hate gays beyond the bible?[/QUOTE]
Southern Athiests. Seriously I know a guy who says he's athiest but everytime he hears something like this he talks about beating the shit out of them.
Yep that's rural Georgia for you.
[QUOTE=Jad Hinto;23223469](What the hell? I'll join in the hill billy talk.) Well what you missed out on there is we all ready have one of e'm as president. That no good Obama is worshpin the DEVIL and I heard he's not complaning bout these hoemosexuals.[/QUOTE]
GODDAYUMN!! Youse gotta be kiddin' me! We's gots to get the devil himself out of our great country! Dat towellhead nazi commie devil wurshipper is gonna sell all our souls to the devil himself! We's gotta meets up in the church to pray to god and take back der countree!
It's too bad Texas can't take a hint from all of this.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.