CNN: Boston appeals court rules Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional

[JMS]

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

No state can pass a law which takes away a right legally granted to a minority of their citizens. When California passed there marriage law, every state in the union had laws which recognized Califonia marriages... Thus the logic of this ruling which strikes down DOMA, and also struck down the similar California refferendum earlier this year; applies to Texas, NC and every other state in the union. Least that will be the argument.

[Thiebear]

No state can pass a law which takes away a right legally granted to a minority of their citizens. When California passed there marriage law, every state in the union had laws which recognized Califonia marriages... Thus the logic of this ruling which strikes down DOMA, and also struck down the similar California refferendum earlier this year; applies to Texas, NC and every other state in the union. Least that will be the argument.

It was basically tongue in cheek as these 3 stated pass crazy ass laws.

You should have to behave yourself as a state before the other 49 have to abide by your whims....

[JMS]

It was basically tongue in cheek as these 3 stated pass crazy ass laws.

You should have to behave yourself as a state before the other 49 have to abide by your whims....

Key here is Texas legislature had a law on the books recognizing California Marriages... So technically what is going to get them isn't that they are bound by Califonia's law, rather they are bound by their own law which recognizes this California law.

So the lower court which struck down the California refferendum; and now htis court of appeals decision; all make it key that this is a right which these people legally possessed, and that can't be taken away now not by DOMA federal law...

not by a state refferendum in the case of California. Stay tuned for what the SCOTUS says.

[Jumbo]

Many "states rights" clowns tend to make me laugh anyway. They've so often morons. Why not community rights or neighborhood rights?

****ing idiots.

There's still be places in this land where it would be ok to run off Native Americans to more "reserved" reservations and own Negroes and screw 12 year olds if we over-valued "states rights"

****.

Squeal the brain-dead "socialism" puke all you want, it's a collective view, with all its flaws, that gives the best promise of worth in a free society.

[JMS]

Squeal the brain-dead "socialism" puke all you want, it's a collective view, with all its flaws, that gives the best promise of worth in a free society.

I will just note that this case isn't about accepting the collective view... Clearly the collective view is against these marriages. California for example had a popular refferendum on their state ballot, NC passed a constitutional ammendement....and DOMA was passed by a majorty of the United States Congress which typically represents the popular opinion of the people in our government. Typically it's the senate which is supposed to take the long view with their longer terms in office.

What's striking down these anti gay marriage laws isn't a collective or majority view. It's the fact that our entire system of government is set up to protect the mimorities against the tierany of the majority. A Republic... and in this case these three judges are saying.... I hear your federal law....But our Constitution Trumps that, and as we hate to overrule the popularly elected Congress's mandate... It's still against the constitution so it's out......

It's the minority trumping the majority... which is what is the big difference between a republic and a democracy.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

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.

That was passed all the way back in what, 2001? When the GOP was against states' rights.... unlike now? See HR 5.

[twa]

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.

you are conflating right to benefits from the feds to a universal right to marriage.

they did not rule SSM was a national right

[JMS]

you are conflating right to benefits from the feds to a universal right to marriage.

So you think if California banned SSM it wouldn't impact it's citizens rights? That's the entire ruling. Once your grant a minority a right, you can't ungrant it isolated just to that minority.

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

...

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.

The right is tied to the benifit... and visa versa.

they did not rule SSM was a national right

Essentially they did by ruling so broadly.. ( least that's an interpretation which will be argued. )

They ruled that if you, a minority, has a right under the law; that right can't then be taken away from you while the majority still posess that right....

(1) In the case of California this logic struck down the refferendum on gay marriage a few month back where the majority of the people in the state voted to repeal SSM.

(2) In the case of MA this same logic struck down the federal DOMA law...

If folks in MA/California never had the right to get Married, Then they couldn't challenge DOMA under this line of reasoning. But once a right is granted to a minority, it can't be taken away only on that minority..

That line of reasoning exists now Nationally... Because once any state passed the new marriage criteria, arguable because of State Laws, every citizen in every state had those rights..... Which is why Texas, and NC are going to be SOL on this issue too.. Least that will be the argument.

A person in Texas or NC had the right to SSM when California and Ma passed there SSM laws because of existing Texas and NC laws recognizing CA and MA marriages. Texas or NC won't be able to take those rights away any more than California or the Federal Government could....

[twa]

"Least that will be the argument".

The court did not rule that broadly, and in fact refused the opportunity to recognize SSM.

By your definition a right can be constructed by a state and imposed on the country

What the court ruled is that a marriage sanctioned by the state cannot be treated differently by the federal govt(and only managed that by raising the scrutiny required)

[JMS]

By your definition a right can be constructed by a state and imposed on the country

Absolutely... if the states universally have laws on there books to recognize a law passed by any state legislature ... Such a law passed by one state absolutely does effect all the states! Every state recognizes ever other state's marriage laws.

I get married in virginia that marriage is accepted throughout the United States even in Texas and North Carolinia.... The logic which applied to the people of Califinia absolutely applies nationally... As soon as CA or Mass passed their SSM laws... people in Texas for exampl were free too and did travel to CA to get married and those marriages were by Texas law valid. Texas can't go back now and put the Geni back in the bottle any more than California could.

Only the supreme court hasn't upheald the California court of appeals decision.. But this federal courts rulling was also decided along the same lines as the California SSM decision which makes it 2-0.

What the court ruled is that a marriage sanctioned by the state cannot be treated differently by the federal govt(and only managed that by raising the scrutiny required)

The Federal DOMA invalidated the MASS SSM Law. This Federal Court's ruling said that was unconstitutional without touching SSM. Simple based upon the premise that rights once confered to a minority can't be subsequently taken away isolated to that minority...

[twa]

Absolutely... if the states universally have laws on there books to recognize a law passed by any state legislature ... Such a law passed by one state absolutely does effect all the states! Every state recognizes ever other state's marriage laws.

.

Laws are subject to the definitions applied, which is one reason laws are being passed giving the accepted definition by a state.....AND a reason for DOMA

[Larry]

What the court ruled is that a marriage sanctioned by the state cannot be treated differently by the federal govt

You actually said something I agree with.

(Well, I don't know if that's what the court ruled. Haven't read the decision. But, I think that's how they should have ruled. I think that the "minimum possible ruling" would be that "The federal government cannot treat some Mass weddings one way, and other Mass weddings some other way.")

[twa]

You actually said something I agree with. )

I can fix that

It is a interesting conflict with the two cases (Gill/HHS)

Does the state have the power to define who gets marriage benefits from the feds....or do the feds

Marriage has been left to the states to regulate,but does state law pre-empt federal law?

Really the issue of unequal is the stronger argument imo,but I think the court went light on the rational test.(unequal is ok if for good reason)

[JMS]

Laws are subject to the definitions applied, which is one reason laws are being passed giving the accepted definition by a state.....AND a reason for DOMA

Different' states have different definitions of marriage. Different ages of concent. Different requirements ( blood test, etc), and different rules about who can get married... ( first and second cousins)...

Yet if you get married in one state, that marriage is recognized in all states... If you got married in MA or California under the SSM laws... at that time you were legally married everywhere....

If the court is saying California's refferendum against SSM is not constitutional then neither is Texas's and NC's constitutional ammendments...

The California and Mass rulings were very very broad. They didn't even mention SSM or descrimination or protected minority. That makes the rulings broader not narrower as the right wing pundants are asserting... The key critera being SSM act granted a right and once granted that right can not be taken away on just a discriminated minority while leaving the right in place for everybody else. That's a very broad ruling given that all the states recognized either other laws when they started to change.

---------- Post added June-1st-2012 at 11:04 AM ----------

"

What the court ruled is that a marriage sanctioned by the state cannot be treated differently by the federal govt(and only managed that by raising the scrutiny required)

Noooo.... The majority opinion in this case sites the 10th ammendment... The 10th ammendment applies to both federal and state governments via the rights of the people.

Unless you are somehow claiming the constitution grants congress or the states the right to discriminate?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

---------- Post added June-1st-2012 at 11:13 AM ----------

"

What the court ruled is that a marriage sanctioned by the state cannot be treated differently by the federal govt(and only managed that by raising the scrutiny required)

I guess if you want to ignore the other decisions on SSM you could come away with that.

But taken in their entireety the California case said the State can't take away such a right.

and this one sais the Federal government can't either.

---------- Post added June-1st-2012 at 11:16 AM ----------

You actually said something I agree with.

(Well, I don't know if that's what the court ruled. Haven't read the decision. But, I think that's how they should have ruled. I think that the "minimum possible ruling" would be that "The federal government cannot treat some Mass weddings one way, and other Mass weddings some other way.")

Superficially this decision said by the 10th ammendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Marriage isn't a federal matter, but a state one...

[ACW]

All I know is, if THESE TWO pose a threat to straight marriage, straight marriage must be in TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE shape.

[twa]

Noooo.... The majority opinion in this case sites the 10th ammendment... The 10th ammendment applies to both federal and state governments via the rights of the people.

Unless you are somehow claiming the constitution grants congress or the states the right to discriminate?

---------- Post added June-1st-2012 at 11:13 AM ----------

I guess if you want to ignore the other decisions on SSM you could come away with that.

But taken in their entireety the California case said the State can't take away such a right.

and this one sais the Federal government can't either.

in reverse order

The Cali one was decided on state constitutional issues....the fact of recognition of marriage across state borders has been so,does not mean it must be so

Yes... both state and federal govts have the right to discriminate ...if justified

one states 10th rights also do not trump anothers....you are reaching

[JMS]

in reverse order

The Cali one was decided on state constitutional issues....the fact of recognition of marriage across state borders has been so,does not mean it must be so

California refferendum was found legal and constitutional under California's law by the California supreme court. It was then elivated to the Federal court which overturned the state's refferendum on SSM. It wasn't decided on California's constitution rather the US Constituion.

On the day of the Strauss v. Horton decision–in which the California State Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8 as a lawful amendment of the state constitution–the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to challenge the validity of Proposition 8 under the U.S. Constitution in a case known as Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Judge Vaughn R. Walker ordered a full trial which began in January 2010. It addressed questions as wide-ranging as whether being gay diminishes one's contribution to society, affects one's ability to raise children, impairs judgment, or constitutes a mental disorder.[55] Judge Walker ruled that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional, violating both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution,

......

On August 4, 2010, a federal court declared the ban unconstitutional in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, a decision which was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on February 7, 2012. A series of stays have kept the legal availability of same-sex marriage on hold pending further appeal.

Yes... both state and federal govts have the right to discriminate ...if justified

one states 10th rights also do not trump anothers....you are reaching

[twa]

Walker ruled on prop 8,not SSM rights outside Cali

and even that ruling is stayed

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700222917/Prop-8-declared-unconstitutional-by-9th-Circuit-Court.html?pg=1

you're still reaching

[LadySkinsFan]

If marriage is solely a state matter, explain the Loving v. Virginia decision. There are 16 states that agree with you that would probably still outlaw mixed race marriages, especially when one of the races is white.

[twa]

Why don't we ask the POTUS?

I hear he is a law scholar and says it is a state power

as for me.....there are rarely matters that are 'soley' anything,and competing rights are balanced on a scale(usually with a thumb on it)

When a issue becomes sufficiently ripe:silly: ,the thumb moves

attempting to expand Loving to SSM is putting your thumb on the scale

do you believe SSM is fundamental to our very existence and survival...as Loving did?

Is loving a member of the same sex criminalised today? (as mixed race marriages were)

as a aside....the weakening of marriage in society actually reduces the argument FOR SSM being needed vs the standard then

add

Hernadez v Robles.

"Thus, because Perez and Loving refused to allow the marriage institution to be appropriated for nonmarriage ends, to use those two cases to advance just such an appropriative project is to betray them. In other words, the Perez/Loving argument advances a superficial analogy that masks a deep disanalogy. That disanalogy is between the intention of Perez and Loving to protect marriage from appropriation for nonmarriage purposes and the intention of the present marriage project to make such an appropriation. Thus, those who deploy the Perez/Loving argument, whether advocates or judges, are misleading people, including perhaps themselves."

Monte Stewart and William Duncan

[skinsmarydu]

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 was me, and now I get it.

[Larry]

do you believe SSM is fundamental to our very existence and survival...as Loving did?

Speaking of moving your thumb, . . .

Loving did not rule that SSM is fundamental to our very existence. (Loving did not emotion SSM at all,).

Loving ruled that the right to marry the person you love is fundamental to our very existence.

And pointing out that that statement applies to gay people is not "attempting to expand Loving" in any way.

Trying to claim that Loving applies to these people who want to get married, but the law says they can't, but not to these other people who want to get married, that's the person who's trying to shift things.

Is loving a member of the same sex criminalised today? (as mixed race marriages were

Uh, trying to invent some other fictional way in which SSM and interracial marriages were supposedly different?

Both SSM, today, and interracial marriages, then, we're not marriages. Neither SSM, today, nor interracial marriages, then, got you thrown in jail.

(And, even if it did, it still wouldn't be relevant. Loving didn't rule that the states couldn't jail people for interracial marriage. It ruled that they couldn't stop interracial marriage).

[twa]

(And, even if it did, it still wouldn't be relevant. Loving didn't rule that the states couldn't jail people for interracial marriage. It ruled that they couldn't stop interracial marriage).

Seemed relevant to the law review article in my cite ...you need to understand WHY it was deemed fundamental to our very existence and survival

a fundamental factor in Loving was procreation....as was the intent of the ban to prevent mixed race children

[Larry]

Seemed relevant to the law review article in my cite ...you need to understand WHY it was deemed fundamental to our very existence and survival

a fundamental factor in Loving was procreation....as was the intent of the ban to prevent mixed race children

Yes, I thought you were working yourself up to trying to run from one untrue claim you had no intention of trying to support (that interracial marriage was somehow criminal, but same sex marriage wasn't), to a different untrue claim that you have no intention of trying to support (that gay are prohibited from getting married because they can't have kids, and people who can't have kids can't get married).

I just figured that if I didn't notice you trying to bring that lie into the discussion, then you'd carefully avoid actually stating it.

[LadySkinsFan]

If procreation is a fundamental factor, then why are heterosexuals who are infertile allowed to marry? Why are heterosexuals who are past menopause allowed to marry? Why are heterosexuals who have erectile dysfunction allowed to marry?

Procreation is only one aspect of marriage, it's not the be all end all. And it's a specious argument, because homosexuals CAN procreate in any of a number of different ways. I give you myself as an example who procreated during my Great Heterosexual Experiment, which failed, but I do have a child.

So you cannot use procreation as an argument.