CNN: Boston appeals court rules Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional

[MattFancy]

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston has ruled the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, discriminates against gay couples.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/31/boston-court-defense-of-marriage-act-unconstitutional/

[Teller]

The "No ****" Department agreed.

[Stadium-Armory]

On the basis that it interferes with a state's right to define marriage. Not sure if it helps the gays at all, but at least it might pave the way for them to not have to battle state AND federal hurdles.

[The Evil Genius]

I think the 9th court ruled it unconstitutional back in February...

---------- Post added May-31st-2012 at 08:17 AM ----------

On the basis that it interferes with a state's right to define marriage. Not sure if it helps the gays at all, but at least it might pave the way for them to not have to battle state AND federal hurdles.

I've contended States shouldn't have that right though. States shouldn't be allowed to discriminate because their population is bigoted and/or prejudiced.

We really can't have NC or TX telling whites/blacks/asians/insert ethnicity here that they can't interracially marry, can we?

[LadySkinsFan]

I wish it had addressed 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.

Also, the Loving v. Virginia decision should have been used as a basis for the decision, building upon prior decisions. Loving v. Virginia declared that marriage is a fundamental right, and is based on the Equal Protection clause and the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. If not for Loving v. Virginia, I'm assuming that the following states would still outlaw mixed race marriages: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia, and Virginia.

BTW, the Equal Protection clause was used (flawed decision) in the Bush v. Gore decision.

[Stadium-Armory]

I agree TEG; state's don't have the right to discriminate even if they amend their state's constitution. We're a republic of laws, not mob rule.

[Larry]

On the basis that it interferes with a state's right to define marriage. Not sure if it helps the gays at all, but at least it might pave the way for them to not have to battle state AND federal hurdles.

Yeah, I think I hear what you're saying.

A ruling like that at least might be interpreted as saying that states do have the right to discriminate through legislation.

Still, I agree with the ruling. The feds should not be in the business of declaring that "even if your state does say you're married, we still won't recognize it, anyway".

[The Evil Genius]

This is where O failed when he came out in support of gay marriage a few weeks back.

By falling back on the policy of allowing states to decide whether they want to legally discriminate, it's nothing more than a copout to me.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Someone asked just after the North Carolina Constitutional Amendment why states amend their constitutions when they already have the laws on the books....well this is why. (I'm not taking a side in this at all, I'm just making a general statement).

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

On the basis that it interferes with a state's right to define marriage. Not sure if it helps the gays at all, but at least it might pave the way for them to not have to battle state AND federal hurdles.

The big issue is that getting rid of DOMA would allow the Full Faith and Credit Clause to rule this issue.

As it stands now, Texas does not have to recognize a Massachusetts marriage if it is between two men, but does if it is between a man and a woman. Force Texas to recognize the Massachusetts marriage and then you have the argument that a Texas-ban is discriminating against similarly situated people. Why should the couple across the street be considered married just because they have a piece of paper from Massachusetts while the couple who got married in a civil ceremony in Austin is not?

[The Evil Genius]

The big issue is that getting rid of DOMA would allow the Full Faith and Credit Clause to rule this issue.

As it stands now' date=' Texas does not have to recognize a Massachusetts marriage if it is between two men, but does if it is between a man and a woman. Force Texas to recognize the Massachusetts marriage and then you have the argument that a Texas-ban is discriminating against similarly situated people. Why should the couple across the street be considered married just because they have a piece of paper from Massachusetts while the couple who got married in a civil ceremony in Austin is not?[/quote']

Interesting. Well then, by all means - keep striking it down.

I see a gay marriage tourism boom in Mass (and other states) coming out of this.

[twa]

I wonder what else states can independently mandate federal benefits for?

interesting concept

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Interesting. Well then, by all means - keep striking it down.

I see a gay marriage tourism boom in Mass (and other states) coming out of this.

I was married in New Jersey. Every state in the union considers me married. I don't have to go through a new ceremony every time I move.

Currently, if a gay couple is married in Massachusetts and they move to Georgia, they suddenly become not married.

Whether you believe in gay marriage or not, you can see how this is a system that is bound to break down eventually.

[Larry]

Someone asked just after the North Carolina Constitutional Amendment why states amend their constitutions when they already have the laws on the books....well this is why. (I'm not taking a side in this at all, I'm just making a general statement).

I disagree with you as to the "why".

I agree that this is the reason that's used to sell it to the voters.

---------- Post added May-31st-2012 at 11:42 AM ----------

I see a gay marriage tourism boom in Mass (and other states) coming out of this.

I wondered a long time ago why, when this fight started, why some place like Las Vegas didn't legalize gay marriage for exactly that reason - to encourage marriage tourism.

Heck, legalize Las Vegas Gay Marriages, but with a $5,000 license fee for out-of-state residents.

Make some money off of it.

---------- Post added May-31st-2012 at 11:43 AM ----------

I wonder what else states can independently mandate federal benefits for?

interesting concept

I wonder what other straw and spin twa will come up with?

[AsburySkinsFan]

I disagree with you as to the "why".

I agree that this is the reason that's used to sell it to the voters.

You don't think the reason that states amend their constitutions when they already have laws on the books is to keep those laws from being ruled unconstitutional by a judge?

[Thiebear]

So all states should abide by Arizona or Florida or California?

I can see problems from those states being followed by all, can't there be a vetting process

[Larry]

You don't think the reason that states amend their constitutions when they already have laws on the books is to keep those laws from being ruled unconstitutional by a judge?

I agree that there are probably people who think so.

People who don't know that the US Constitution trumps their State Constitution.

I will point out that no State Constitution was involved in this decision, whatsoever.

[JMS]

On the basis that it interferes with a state's right to define marriage. Not sure if it helps the gays at all, but at least it might pave the way for them to not have to battle state AND federal hurdles.

On the basis that the entire reason we have a constitution is to protect the minority from the tierany of the majorty. On the basis that the majority can not use the constitution or laws written under the constitution to strip rights away from people in the minority.

Some Americans like to say we live in a democracy, or this or that is "Unedemocratic". The fact is our founding fathers did not set up a democracy because they did not trust the majority of people to be just. It was a democracy after all which killed Sacrates.

thus our founding fathers created a republic. Ones in which the minority view was protected, and that's essensially what the court of appeals found unanimously.

Appeals Court Judge Michael Boudin wrote the unanimous decision for a three-judge panel.

“Invalidating a federal statute is an unwelcome responsibility for federal judges; the elected Congress speaks for the entire nation, its judgment and good faith being entitled to utmost respect,’’ he wrote. “But a lower federal court such as ours must follow its best understanding of governing precedent, knowing that in large matters the Supreme Court will correct mis-readings.”

Boudin noted that if DOMA is left intact, then same-sex couples legally married in Massachusetts are being denied federal benefits routinely provided to heterosexual couples. That, he said, cannot withstand legal scrutiny.

Key here is that these couples could marry at one time, and DOMA descriminated against these people by denying them rights which they gained legally.

[Larry]

Interesting decision time for the Obama Administration, now:

Do they appeal it?

If they don't, then as I understand it, the ruling doesn't create precedent, and it only applies in whatever part of the country that particular court has jurisdiction over.

Whereas, if they appeal it, and if the SC upholds it, then there's precedent.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I agree that there are probably people who think so.

People who don't know that the US Constitution trumps their State Constitution.

You're right, but until one of these lawsuits make it to SCOTUS then it is more likely that the state laws will be struck down, and so the people in those states prevent as much as they can, especially since there won't be a Federal Constitutional amendment any time soon, this whole issue will be decided in the courts.

I will point out that no State Constitution was involved in this decision, whatsoever.

No state constitution was involved in this decision to rule a law unconstitutional? Larry...I may have misunderstood you what you said but the way that last statement reads seems a bit....stupid.

[JMS]

Someone asked just after the North Carolina Constitutional Amendment why states amend their constitutions when they already have the laws on the books....well this is why. (I'm not taking a side in this at all, I'm just making a general statement).

that's a little backwards... In this case Ma had a law allowing these marriages. It was the federal law ( DOMA ) which over ruled the state law and it was the federal law which was stricken down on the basis that it retroactively denied rights to these citizens.

[Larry]

No state constitution was involved in this decision to rule a law unconstitutional? Larry...I may have misunderstood you what you said but the way that last statement reads seems a bit....stupid.

1) This decision examines a federal law. Which is not affected by State Constitutions.

2) The US Constitution declares that

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And the US Constitution is "the supreme law of the land".

If Arizona wants to pass a law legalizing slavery, then it's unconstitutional. Whether they put it in their state constitution or not.

[AsburySkinsFan]

1) This decision examines a federal law. Which is not affected by State Constitutions.

Gotcha...I had it backwards...mah bad.

[JMS]

As it stands now' date=' Texas does not have to recognize a Massachusetts marriage if it is between two men, but does if it is between a man and a woman. Force Texas to recognize the Massachusetts marriage and then you have the argument that a Texas-ban is discriminating against similarly situated people. Why should the couple across the street be considered married just because they have a piece of paper from Massachusetts while the couple who got married in a civil ceremony in Austin is not?[/quote']

Actually that's not entirely accurate... This case can and is being interpreted broadly... If the Federal government doesn't have the right to pass a law which retroactively discriminates against folks legally maried, then Texas or any other state doesn't have that right either...

Key here is when Ma and California passed these laws allowing the marriages, Texas and every other state had laws on the books recognizing marriages liscenses granted in California and Ma. Folks from California or Ma didn't have to get remarried if they moved to Texas. Thus Texas legally did recognize these marriages from California and Ma; and following this rulling Texas or any other state doesn't have the right to now take these legally obtained rights away anymore than the Federal Government does... ( state constitution or no )....

This is a US Constitutional ruling, and the US Constitution trumps State Laws and State Constitutions..... The only way to put this back in the box would be to get a US Constitutional Ammendment.. ( high hurdle ) and have that ammendment denying folks rights for the first time in our history, pass supreme court wiff test... which seems like an even higher hurdle.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Interesting decision time for the Obama Administration, now:

Do they appeal it?

If they don't, then as I understand it, the ruling doesn't create precedent, and it only applies in whatever part of the country that particular court has jurisdiction over.

Whereas, if they appeal it, and if the SC upholds it, then there's precedent.

Right now, there is a split in the Districts. Therefore, the law differs based on where you live. Eventually, this will end up in the Supreme Court to resolve the split. How it gets there could be complicated.