• US Appeals Court rules against Defense of Marriage Act
    16 replies, posted
[quote][U][B]A US appeals court has ruled key parts of a federal law denying benefits to same-sex couples are unconstitutional.[/B][/U] A three-judge panel in Boston, Massachusetts, unanimously said the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (Doma) discriminated against gay couples. Under the act, legally married gay couples are denied benefits, including the ability to file joint tax returns. The US Supreme Court must now decide the matter, since only it can rule if Congress' laws are constitutional. The court did not rule on whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. The 1st Circuit appeals court agreed with a lower court's ruling that the federal law interfered with the states' right to define marriage. Thursday's decision applies only to states within the circuit: Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Maine and New Hampshire and Puerto Rico. It is the first federal appeals court to find the section of the law relating to federal tax, health and pension benefits unconstitutional. "One virtue of federalism is that it permits this diversity of governance based on local choice, but this applies as well to the states that have chosen to legalize same-sex marriage," Judge Michael Boudin wrote. "Under current Supreme Court authority, Congress' denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married in Massachusetts has not been adequately supported by any permissible federal interest." Doma - enacted in 1996 during the Clinton administration - defines marriage for federal purposes as a union exclusively between a man and a woman. President Barack Obama said last year that the Department of Justice would no longer defend the Doma. Gay marriage is legal in eight US states and the District of Columbia. In May, Mr Obama endorsed gay marriage.[/quote] [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18288406]BBC[/url]
Excellent news.
This is a stupid policy anyway. Why should government-issued benefits rely on which organ your partner has? My religious bullshit meter is through the roof on this one. Let's hope SCOTUS affirms this one.
it's good that they ruled against it, but that it was even a bill people thought was worth passing is shameful
[QUOTE=Snowmew;36146609] Let's hope SCOTUS affirms this one.[/QUOTE] I know what it stands for, but damn it still looks like some sort of genital disease.
[QUOTE=Prez;36147091]I know what it stands for, but damn it still looks like some sort of genital disease.[/QUOTE] Just add an R after the C.
Wonderful news! I really do hope that the USSC can see this case soon. Even with Scalia, as he is typically rather libertarian in his writings.
i really don't trust the supreme court to handle this one.
[QUOTE=Lazor;36152485]i really don't trust the supreme court to handle this one.[/QUOTE] At least at the national level, the federal branch is the governmental branch I trust the most in the country.
Alright, now let's just get it in before the election. If the Supreme Court is finally backed into a corner and must rule on the matter, they're going to have to use the Fourteenth. And when they use the Fourteenth, then they'll be legalizing gay marriage. It's either going to be this, or it's going to be Prop 8. One of these is going to force a decision from the SCOTUS, as long as SCOTUS keeps the current composition, we're looking good. [editline]1st June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=DanTehMan;36152500]At least at the national level, the federal branch is the governmental branch I trust the most in the country.[/QUOTE] The entire national government is federal. There is no federal branch.
What a shame, this nation is losing it's true American roots of oppression and discrimination. In the words of Martin Luther King, "Shame, shame, shame, shame, shame." Nah, that's real nice for the people I don't really give a damn about.
[QUOTE=FSU;36152756]What a shame, this nation is losing it's true American roots of oppression and discrimination. In the words of Martin Luther King, "Shame, shame, shame, shame, shame." Nah, that's real nice for the people I don't really give a damn about.[/QUOTE] Well, you're.... friendly.
[QUOTE=ewitwins;36153234]Well, you're.... friendly.[/QUOTE] Thanks man.
Well that certainly took long enough
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];36152626']Alright, now let's just get it in before the election. If the Supreme Court is finally backed into a corner and must rule on the matter, they're going to have to use the Fourteenth. And when they use the Fourteenth, then they'll be legalizing gay marriage. It's either going to be this, or it's going to be Prop 8. One of these is going to force a decision from the SCOTUS, as long as SCOTUS keeps the current composition, we're looking good.[/QUOTE] I have my doubts about them "legalizing" gay marriage. I see them throwing around the full faith and credit clause, but forcing states to issue gay marriages seems too optimistic for now. I honestly would have no problem if they just ruled that states must [i]recognize[/i] it, at least for the time being. We need more of these anti-gay religious nutjobs to move on before we can get any further.
[QUOTE=Snowmew;36164735]I have my doubts about them "legalizing" gay marriage. I see them throwing around the full faith and credit clause, but forcing states to issue gay marriages seems too optimistic for now. I honestly would have no problem if they just ruled that states must [i]recognize[/i] it, at least for the time being. We need more of these anti-gay religious nutjobs to move on before we can get any further.[/QUOTE] While it is true that full faith and credit will be an issue, there's no way they'll be able to make a decision on that (well, a small part if we're just talking DOMA, but not for Prop 8). If we're talking just Prop 8, then we're talking a couple of things: that the federal court's decision will be shot down, and (assuming that it doesn't end there) that Prop 8 is unconstitutional, either under the Equal Protection Clause or in violation of the neutrality of general applicability of the law.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.