Thursday, July 08, 2010

Defense of Marriage Act is Unconstitutional

The AP version of the story:
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.

His rulings apply to Massachusetts but could have broader implications for other states where gay marriage is legal if it's upheld on appeal. Federal gay marriage ban is ruled unconstitutional

You can bet that conservatives across the country will be delighted to hear that states' rights are supported and the federal government is being limited by this tough judge, forced to conform to the mandates of the Constitution.


Anonymous oiiohh said...

actually, the states' rights case sounds like it was decided correctly to me

July 08, 2010 10:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm a conservative and oppose same sex marriage and I think that this case was decided correctly.

July 08, 2010 11:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

quotes from Barry on the campaign trail:

“Government doesn’t have all the answers. Ultimately, government doesn’t create all the jobs. Government can’t generate the jobs or growth we need by itself.

So our goal has never been to create another government program. Our goal has been to spur growth in the private sector.”

hey, Big O, if that's your goal, you've failed

now that you've figured out that socialism doesn't work, you need to cut corporate tax rates and capital gains taxes to "spur growth in the private sector"

John Kennedy did it

Bill Clinton did it

you can do it too

embrace capitalism

it works

July 09, 2010 8:57 AM  
Anonymous oiiohh said...

yes, all this gay crap should be a matter of state law rather Federal fiat

they're taking care of gays in Hawaii:

"The governor's veto of the civil unions bill in Hawaii is Exhibit A in how to handle the gay agenda.

The Hawaii legislature had granted same-sex couples the same rights and responsibilities as married heterosexuals. The legislature overwhelmingly passed a civil unions law. All that was needed was the governor’s signature.

Gov. Linda Lingle had meetings and phone calls with those in favor of and against same-sex marriage. And Lingle vetoed the legislation on Tuesday. “I have been consistent in my opposition to same gender marriage and find that HB 444 is essentially marriage by another name,” she said.

And then Lingle did the only appropriate thing. She advocated putting the matter up for a popular vote.

'The subject of this legislation has touched the hearts and minds of our citizens as no other social issue of our day. It would be a mistake to allow a decision of this magnitude to be made by one individual or a small group of elected officials.

And while ours is a system of representative government it also is one that recognizes that, from time to time, there are issues that require the reflection, collective wisdom and consent of the people and reserves to them the right to directly decide those matters. This is one such issue.'

We’ve all seen what happens when marriage equality is on the ballot. Californians, in 2008, approved a state constitutional amendment that defined and recognized marriage as between one man and one woman in the Golden State. The people of California exercised self-determination.

Lingle said it was the 'depth of emotion' from both sides that revealed to her just how important the institution of marriage is."

July 09, 2010 10:25 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

I'm not sure if voting on other people's civil rights is an exercise of 'self-determination.' I think Wilson had other things in mind.

July 09, 2010 2:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

having devinace recognized by the state is not a right, Robozo

July 09, 2010 2:07 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

But correct spelling and polite address are, my dear.

July 09, 2010 3:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

look, seewtheart, bad spelling is what the bloggery is all about!

July 09, 2010 3:30 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Two true.

July 09, 2010 4:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Perhaps,"oiiohh" (a.k.a. "Anonymous" we should take a public vote on your existence!

July 10, 2010 12:41 PM  
Anonymous oiiohh said...

you do that, pal

is the white knight talking backwards on your, uh, trip?

July 10, 2010 10:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"oiiohh"....I ain't your pal...for obvious reasons!

July 11, 2010 12:43 PM  
Anonymous oiiohh said...

look, pal, you need to stop chasing rabbits

July 11, 2010 12:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'd stop chasing rabbits if they would stop leaving their turds here!

July 12, 2010 6:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

why are you looking for turds?

July 13, 2010 7:22 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home