karmacop Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 A federal judge in Massachusetts (Judge Tauro, appointed by Nixon in 1972) has ruled, in two separate companion decisions, that a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. The section struck down was the one denying federal benefits (i.e., married tax status, health benefits, social security benefits, etc.) to same-sex married couples by defining the words "married" and "spouse" to only include opposite sex couples, regardless of whether the particular state had recognized same-sex couples as equally married. The judge found that it violated the equal protection clause of the Fifth Amendment (the Gill decision) and the Tenth Amendment reserving powers to the states (the Commonwealth decision). These decisions do not invalidate the other main portion of DOMA, which allowed states to decline to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. Here's the AP article describing the decisions: BOSTON — A U.S. judge in Boston has ruled that a federal gay marriage ban is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define marriage.U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro on Thursday ruled in favor of gay couples' rights in two separate challenges to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA. The state had argued the law denied benefits such as Medicaid to gay married couples in Massachusetts, where same-sex unions have been legal since 2004. Tauro agreed, and said the act forces Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens. The act "plainly encroaches" upon the right of the state to determine marriage, Tauro said in his ruling on a lawsuit filed by state Attorney General Martha Coakley. In a ruling in a separate case filed by Gays & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, Tauro ruled the act violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. "Congress undertook this classification for the one purpose that lies entirely outside of legislative bounds, to disadvantage a group of which it disapproves. And such a classification the Constitution clearly will not permit," Tauro wrote. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jZVhxGXCMRA-mJB4JYXiICP3a6jQD9GR4TR01 And here are links to the decisions themselves, in case anyone want to read them: Gill: http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/recentops.pl?filename=tauro/pdf/gill%20et%20al%20v%20opm%20et%20al%20sj%20memo.pdf Commonwealth: http://www.scribd.com/doc/34072925/DOMA-decision-in-Mass-AG-case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 "The act "plainly encroaches" upon the right of the state to determine marriage" Is this another win for the 10th Amendment? Oh, GET THE FEDS OUT OF THE MARRIAGE BUSINESS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karmacop Posted July 8, 2010 Author Share Posted July 8, 2010 "The act "plainly encroaches" upon the right of the state to determine marriage"Is this another win for the 10th Amendment? Oh, GET THE FEDS OUT OF THE MARRIAGE BUSINESS! Yes, indeed it is. This is a win for those who want to see more teeth given to the 10th Amendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 1) Big victory for State's Rights. 2) Now wondering: Does the government appeal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 :applause: to the decision. I'm being only half-facetious here: what about suing for fraud? "Defense of Marriage" my foot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 More and more, I'm seeing battle lines between the States and the Feds regarding where constitutional powers lie. It was inevitable with the rapid expansion of Federal power IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 10th Amendment FTW! :party: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 I agree with the decision on its surface. I've come to support civil unions, and this decision essentially validates the rights of said unions. I do, however, strongly support state's rights; and I don't like the feds saying "this is what marriage will mean in your state." (Gross oversimplification.) But the meat of the decision I agree with entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 More and more, I'm seeing battle lines between the States and the Feds regarding where constitutional powers lie. It was inevitable with the rapid expansion of Federal power IMHO.Unfortunately SCOTUS ruled wrong in Raich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoot Point Really Posted July 9, 2010 Share Posted July 9, 2010 "The act "plainly encroaches" upon the right of the state to determine marriage"Is this another win for the 10th Amendment? Oh, GET THE FEDS OUT OF THE MARRIAGE BUSINESS! Get the States out of it too... It's a sacrament of the Church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackest Eyes Posted July 9, 2010 Share Posted July 9, 2010 "The act "plainly encroaches" upon the right of the state to determine marriage"Is this another win for the 10th Amendment? Oh, GET THE FEDS OUT OF THE MARRIAGE BUSINESS! Get the States out of it too... It's a sacrament of the Church. Big +1 to these statements. IMO, these unions should be all be civil unions and if a couple wants to be married, the church must be involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnhay Posted July 9, 2010 Share Posted July 9, 2010 I'm sick of so many people acting like they care about marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 9, 2010 Share Posted July 9, 2010 I'm sick of so many people acting like they care about marriage. What of the ones that do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnhay Posted July 9, 2010 Share Posted July 9, 2010 What of the ones that do? Those people seem to be arguing against it on moral grounds, but I think it's silly to give marriage so much meaning outside of your religion. With a divorce rate of at least 40%, why is it such a big deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackest Eyes Posted July 9, 2010 Share Posted July 9, 2010 Those people seem to be arguing against it on moral grounds, but I think it's silly to give marriage so much meaning outside of your religion. With a divorce rate of at least 40%, why is it such a big deal? Pretty ironic. I had never really thought of that before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 9, 2010 Share Posted July 9, 2010 Those people seem to be arguing against it on moral grounds, but I think it's silly to give marriage so much meaning outside of your religion. With a divorce rate of at least 40%, why is it such a big deal? There is nothing outside my religion since it directs my life What others do is there own business,I answer for me and mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
81artmonk Posted July 9, 2010 Share Posted July 9, 2010 Those people seem to be arguing against it on moral grounds, but I think it's silly to give marriage so much meaning outside of your religion. With a divorce rate of at least 40%, why is it such a big deal? Curious question. Those argueing for it claiming their rights are being violated, where do our rights come from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.A.C.O.L.B. Posted July 9, 2010 Share Posted July 9, 2010 Curious question. Those argueing for it claiming their rights are being violated, where do our rights come from? Oooh, ooooh! I know! God!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted July 9, 2010 Share Posted July 9, 2010 Curious question. Those argueing for it claiming their rights are being violated, where do our rights come from? The barrel of a gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.A.C.O.L.B. Posted July 9, 2010 Share Posted July 9, 2010 The barrel of a gun. Hey poker, got a question for you. I know you're a solid libertarian. What's the common libertarian position on gay marriage? Genuinely curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted July 9, 2010 Share Posted July 9, 2010 Hey poker, got a question for you. I know you're a solid libertarian. What's the common libertarian position on gay marriage? Genuinely curious. Well I'm not gonna speak for anyone else, but I think marriage in a religious sense has no business in government or vice versa. Let the religions decide who to and to not marry in the eyes of god. If you want recognition in the eyes of the law (why you would want that is beyond me ) then get a civil union performed by a judge or something along those lines. Gay, straight, or perhaps even a multiple-partner union. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.A.C.O.L.B. Posted July 9, 2010 Share Posted July 9, 2010 Well I'm not gonna speak for anyone else, but I think marriage in a religious sense has no business in government or vice versa. Let the religions decide who to and to not marry in the eyes of god. If you want recognition in the eyes of the law (why you would want that is beyond me ) then get a civil union performed by a judge or something along those lines. Gay, straight, or perhaps even a multiple-partner union. That's what I figured. And for the most part were on the same exact page. I have to think more about the multiple-partner thing but I get why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted July 9, 2010 Share Posted July 9, 2010 That's what I figured. And for the most part were on the same exact page. I have to think more about the multiple-partner thing but I get why. There are definitely things that need to be worked out legally for multiple partners because it does change things a bit, but I see no reason why 3 or more consenting adults can't form together like that. On a somewhat related note, I don't understand why married couples get tax breaks for being married. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 9, 2010 Share Posted July 9, 2010 Yes, indeed it is. This is a win for those who want to see more teeth given to the 10th Amendment. It is, that is why I would expect it to be overturned. If not it opens the door fairly wide on 10th issues http://volokh.com/2010/07/09/doma-case-and-the-tenth-amendment/ Gonna be interesting:evilg: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewCliche21 Posted July 9, 2010 Share Posted July 9, 2010 Well I'm not gonna speak for anyone else, but I think marriage in a religious sense has no business in government or vice versa. Let the religions decide who to and to not marry in the eyes of god. If you want recognition in the eyes of the law (why you would want that is beyond me ) then get a civil union performed by a judge or something along those lines. Gay, straight, or perhaps even a multiple-partner union. Ding! Not sure why so many people who are so anti-government involvement want the government to be involved in other people's relationships. And as for the religion = marriage thing: :ols: . Many people get married because they love each other, not for anything else. Marriage happens all over the globe, across nations, cultures, religions, and people who just want to spend the rest of their lives with someone (or more) else. How that affects anyone else is beyond me. Against gay marriage? Then don't marry someone of your sex. The rest is none of your business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.