A big blow to Defense of Marriage Act

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 08, 2010 9:15 PM GMT
    A federal judge in Boston has basically struck down the Defense of Marriage Act in the case of a military veteran who wanted a burial for himself and his gay partner in a veterans' cemetery. This is the act that prevents the federal government from officially recognizing same-sex marriage. This isn't a repeal of the law, this is a federal judge declaring it unconstitutional in a landmark lawsuit.

    I think this is a big step forward.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 08, 2010 9:43 PM GMT
    I would say go Mass! icon_razz.gif, but then again, this is the same state that gave us Scott Brown icon_cry.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 08, 2010 9:49 PM GMT
    Here ya go, a little more now that the news trickled out...


    http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/07/judge_declares_3.html

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 08, 2010 10:01 PM GMT
    Very nice. This was bound to happen sooner or later, DOMA being very clearly unconstitutional.

    It will be interesting to see if the Obama justice department appeals this one. Given their actions so far, I wouldn't put it past them to do so. icon_mad.gif


    Judge Joseph L. Tauro, in a 36-page ruling that touched on the history of marriage laws, found that the federal Defense of Marriage Act violates Massachusetts’ right to recognize same-sex unions.

    “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,” Tauro wrote. “The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state, and, in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment.”
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 08, 2010 10:10 PM GMT
    Rawrly saidThis needs to go far enough that I can find myself an American husband and get citizenship. Having an American great-grandfather isn't enough!


    I know. I have been there.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 08, 2010 10:14 PM GMT
    It is true that this was more of a states'-rights case than a ruling on whether gay marriages should be legalized. But still... it's a move in the right direction and is a blow to DOMA.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 08, 2010 10:18 PM GMT
    DjDorchester saidIt is true that this was more of a states'-rights case than a ruling on whether gay marriages should be legalized.


    I don't really see how it can separate the two. It cites the full faith and credit clause, which requires the federal government to recognize marriages as defined by states.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 09, 2010 1:43 AM GMT
    DOMA was all Clinton's.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 09, 2010 1:51 AM GMT
    JackJrzy saidDOMA was all Clinton's.


    Congress passed the law, not the president. Irrelevant anyway, it is wrong no matter who passed it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 09, 2010 1:52 AM GMT
    DjDorchester said
    JackJrzy saidDOMA was all Clinton's.


    Congress passed the law, not the president. Irrelevant anyway, it is wrong no matter who passed it.


    He signed it - it's his.

    Don't tell me how "progressive" Clinton was.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 09, 2010 1:53 AM GMT
    JackJrzy said
    DjDorchester said
    JackJrzy saidDOMA was all Clinton's.


    Congress passed the law, not the president. Irrelevant anyway, it is wrong no matter who passed it.


    He signed it - it's his.

    Don't tell me how "progressive" Clinton was.


    Don't put words in my mouth.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 09, 2010 1:55 AM GMT
    I know how white Liberals think.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 09, 2010 1:59 AM GMT
    white Liberals have an infantile sense of entitlement. Screw 'em.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 09, 2010 2:01 AM GMT
    "THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
    and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

    THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
    and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

    THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
    and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

    THEN THEY CAME for the white Liberals,
    and I said IT'S ABOUT FUCKING TIME.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 09, 2010 2:03 AM GMT
    You aren't very intelligent.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 09, 2010 2:03 AM GMT
    JackJrzy saidDOMA was all Clinton's.
    So, what's your point?
  • Peteyboy583

    Posts: 32

    Jul 09, 2010 2:05 AM GMT
    The district court only ruled on Section 3 of DOMA, the rest of it is still present (including the Full Faith and Credit limitation). While I agree we have right to be happy about this progressive step, let us realize that the decision WILL be appealed to SCOTUS (the Supreme Court). That is what we need to be concerned with.

    So, lets be happy now, but DOMA may be found constitutional by the high court.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 09, 2010 2:06 AM GMT
    No, you all have a slavish devotion to all Democrats, no matter what assholes they are.

    Yuck.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 09, 2010 2:23 AM GMT
    DOMA was all Clinton's.

    He signed it - it's his.

    Don't tell me how "progressive" Clinton was.

    I know how white Liberals think.

    white Liberals have an infantile sense of entitlement. Screw 'em.

    "THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
    and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

    THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
    and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

    THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
    and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

    THEN THEY CAME for the white Liberals,
    and I said IT'S ABOUT FUCKING TIME.

    You aren't very intelligent.

    No, you all have a slavish devotion to all Democrats, no matter what assholes they are.
    Yuck.

    The only fact in all of that was:

    DOMA was all Clinton's.
    He signed it - It's his.

    Do you have anything constructive to add to the debate?

    Where is Jack Blair?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 09, 2010 2:26 AM GMT
    Yes, what I have to contribute is advice to you white Liberals to pick up a book now and then, and stop getting your opinions from Maddow and Stewart.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 09, 2010 2:31 AM GMT
    There was one fact, and nothing insightful.

    Only inciteful.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 09, 2010 2:31 AM GMT
    Peteyboy583 saidlet us realize that the decision WILL be appealed to SCOTUS


    I'll wait and see about that.
    The DoJ has no obligation to appeal either of these cases.

    That's right, this is TWO cases.

    Gill et al v Office of Personnel Management
    and
    Mass v US

    Both cases found section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional

    in the Gill case, a 5th amendment violation
    in the Mass case, a 10th amendment violation
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 09, 2010 3:02 AM GMT
    Here's what the NOM ( hate group ) has to say about the DOMA rulings:

    NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE DECRIES
    BOSTON FEDERAL JUDGE'S DECISION
    STRIKING DOWN THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT

    "A Boston judge has no moral right to decide the marriage question for the people of the U.S."
    – Brian Brown, President, National Organization for Marriage
    WASHINGTON, DC – The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) released the following statements today in response to a federal judge in Boston ruling the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional.

    "Under the guidance of Elena Kagan’s brief that she filed when she was Solicitor General, Obama's justice department deliberately sabotaged this case," charged Brian Brown, President of NOM, referring to the Justice Department's brief which described DOMA as discriminatory. Despite the explicit language in DOMA that the law was designed to protect children's right to their mothers and fathers, the judge disavowed that DOMA has anything to do with responsible procreation. "With only Obama to defend DOMA, this federal judge has taken the extraordinary step of overturning a law passed by huge bipartisan majorities and signed into law by Pres. Clinton in 1996. A single federal judge in Boston has no moral right to decide the definition of marriage for the people of the United States," Brown continued.

    "Does this federal judge want to start another culture war?" asked Maggie Gallagher, Chairman of NOM. "Does he really want another Roe. v. Wade? The simple fact is that the right of the federal government to define marriage for the purposes of its federal law and federal territories has been clear since the late 19th century, when Congress banned polygamy. Only an incompetent defense could have lost this case. We expect to win in a higher court."



    It's been a while since I read DOMA, but I don't recall any explicit language in DOMA that the law was designed to protect children's right to their mothers and fathers
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 09, 2010 3:03 AM GMT
    _chuck_ saidHere's what the NOM ( hate group ) has to say about the DOMA rulings:

    NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE DECRIES
    BOSTON FEDERAL JUDGE'S DECISION
    STRIKING DOWN THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT

    "A Boston judge has no moral right to decide the marriage question for the people of the U.S."
    – Brian Brown, President, National Organization for Marriage
    WASHINGTON, DC – The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) released the following statements today in response to a federal judge in Boston ruling the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional.

    "Under the guidance of Elena Kagan’s brief that she filed when she was Solicitor General, Obama's justice department deliberately sabotaged this case," charged Brian Brown, President of NOM, referring to the Justice Department's brief which described DOMA as discriminatory. Despite the explicit language in DOMA that the law was designed to protect children's right to their mothers and fathers, the judge disavowed that DOMA has anything to do with responsible procreation. "With only Obama to defend DOMA, this federal judge has taken the extraordinary step of overturning a law passed by huge bipartisan majorities and signed into law by Pres. Clinton in 1996. A single federal judge in Boston has no moral right to decide the definition of marriage for the people of the United States," Brown continued.

    "Does this federal judge want to start another culture war?" asked Maggie Gallagher, Chairman of NOM. "Does he really want another Roe. v. Wade? The simple fact is that the right of the federal government to define marriage for the purposes of its federal law and federal territories has been clear since the late 19th century, when Congress banned polygamy. Only an incompetent defense could have lost this case. We expect to win in a higher court."



    It's been a while since I read DOMA, but I don't recall any explicit language in DOMA that the law was designed to protect children's right to their mothers and fathers


    I agree that NOM are dicks, but please - a group isn't a "hate group" just because you disagree with them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 09, 2010 3:08 AM GMT
    JackJrzy said
    I agree that NOM are dicks, but please - a group isn't a "hate group" just because you disagree with them.


    NOM is not a hate group "just because I disagree with them".

    NOM is a hate group because they hate.