MA Judge rules DOMA is unconstitutional [MERGED]

[BostonPirate]

Re: MA Judge rules DOMA is unconstitutional

hmm...

I think I am following you here. two examples would be interacial marriage and underage marriage.

there was a time when different states didn't recognize them and others did.

so the pressing question for me would be this...

How did it become legal for biracial marriage throughout the entire country? and is there a legal standard of age nationally?

 

[BostonPirate]

Re: MA Judge rules DOMA is unconstitutional

^^^

Landmark case for racist marriage laws in 1967, Loving vs. Virginia.

yes yes....

your pick five thread. thats right I remember reading that.

 

[BostonPirate]

Re: MA Judge rules DOMA is unconstitutional

Don't worry. I didn't believe you weren't aware of it.

all roads lead back to the supreme court.

and Scalia is in his mid seventies...

sounds like a good reason to give Obama a second term to me.

 

[construct]

Re: MA Judge rules DOMA is unconstitutional

hmm...

I think I am following you here. two examples would be interacial marriage and underage marriage.

there was a time when different states didn't recognize them and others did.

so the pressing question for me would be this...

How did it become legal for biracial marriage throughout the entire country? and is there a legal standard of age nationally?

^^^

Landmark case for racist marriage laws in 1967, Loving vs. Virginia.

Right. Loving held that a state law criminalizing interracial marriage violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The marriage was celebrated in Washington, D.C. to avoid the Virginia ban, but the couple were arrested sometime after they got back home.

Going to another state to get married in order to avoid restrictions in your own state is called 'evasive marriage.' Courts are a little harder on evasive marriages than they are on migrating marriages.

There is no uniform minimum age for marriage. It varies pretty widely from state to state. That's another area where states will differ in their treatment of migrating and evasive marriages. Some states recognize out-of-state marriages that would violate their own minimum-age law. Other states find that their policy against under-age marriages is too strong to ignore.

 

[hotatlboi]

Re: MA Judge rules DOMA is unconstitutional

There may have been liberals who thought it right to relinquish power and retire, but I don't think any conservatives on the bench fancy that, not even under a conservative president.

I think he might have been referring more toward the possibility that it might not be a choice for him.

The average life expectancy for American men is 75.

 

[BostonPirate]

Re: MA Judge rules DOMA is unconstitutional

I think he might have been referring more toward the possibility that it might not be a choice for him.

The average life expectancy for American men is 75.

I have been googling his health for fifteen minutes, and not a bit out there in either direction. If he's got any health issues, he is keeping them private.

 

[stillscion20]

Re: MA Judge rules DOMA is unconstitutional

obviously scotus won't approve of this, although it really really seems like they should.

this brings a question to mind though, has a supreme court justice ever been assassinated? I mean they are basically as powerful as the president, and with the 5-4 court we have I'm surprised some nutjob hasn't even attempted it.

ps: I lol'd at: Martha Coakley, "MA Attorney General and unsuccessful senate candidate". She's such a loser.

 

[evanrick]

Re: MA Judge rules DOMA is unconstitutional

i believe the supreme court has already refused to hear gay marriage cases.

i think it would be a huge judicial activism to overturn something that countless states have adopted.

but the roberts court is the worst court in history. alito is a lunatic. and doma is basically facism.

 

[MercuryJones]

Re: MA Judge rules DOMA is unconstitutional

To tell the truth, I half wish this were our key case right now rather than Prop8.

My fears about Prop8 are twofold: 1. The current SCOTUS will rule against us, and it will galvanize the anti-gay forces to pass more state laws against us, with no recourse; 2. The ruling will go as we want but there will be a terrible backlash, possibly including a constitutional amendment.

By instead overturning DOMA the most anti-gay states can retain some sense of control a home, giving us more time to improve polling.

But operating from fear isn't a good place to be, and is often not right anyway. And in the end we have no control over the timing.

 

[MercuryJones]

Re: MA Judge rules DOMA is unconstitutional

JockBoy, I didn't mean we have, or should have, a fear tactic.

I meant I have fears regarding the Prop8 case, delineated above, but I don't think operating from that fear-based place is smart.

 

[rareboy]

Re: MA Judge rules DOMA is unconstitutional

Hopefully this ruling will be the thin edge of the wedge for the US.

I love Massachusetts.

 

[BostonPirate]

Re: MA Judge rules DOMA is unconstitutional

its being reported on all the cable news channels as a big win for gays in massachusetts.

 

[bankside]

Equal marriage in Massachusetts and the Federal gov't.

A great article about an excellent legal decision in Massachusetts.

.On Thursday, in a sweeping opinion in this deliberately narrow case, Judge Joseph Tauro of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts struck down a key part of DoMA. In his opinion in the main case, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, Tauro rejected every possible reason to retain the law. (In the companion case brought by Coakley, he also found that Congress had overstepped the boundary between the federal government and the states, adding a sweet states' rights gloss to the generally liberal decision.)

http://www.slate.com/id/2260039

This is exactly the same kind of path it took in Canada for us to get equality nation-wide. It is working And it looks like Obama is not trying very hard in court so DOMA can fail.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: MA Judge rules DOMA is unconstitutional

The U.S. Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to regulate marriage beyond what might be necessary to carry out its duties. Thus marriage laws are left almost entirely to the states. I think it could be argued that the federal definition of marriage for purposes of federal law in DOMA does not exceed the scope of Congress's authority. Perhaps this new case approaches this differently.

If DOMA doesn't exceed the scope of Congress' authority, then no law about interpersonal relationships does. It's discriminatory on the face of it, so to say it is within their authority means discrimination is within their authority. If DOMA is legitimate exercise of federal power, then Congress could have passed a law against interracial marriage and it would have been legitimate, or a law against two people of great difference in height, or a blind person and a sighted person.....

all roads lead back to the supreme court.

and Scalia is in his mid seventies...

sounds like a good reason to give Obama a second term to me.

Obama has shown himself an idiot on SCOTUS appointments. Yes, Scalia is a total statist authoritarian, but Obama would replace him with another enemy of free speech like Kagan, or worse.

Sign the circulating Courage Campaign petition urging Obama and the Justice Department not to appeal the ruling.

http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/s/DontAppeal

Don't Ask, Don't Appeal?

Seems to me the petition is born out of that fear that's been mentioned. Wouldn't we rather have this confirmed by a higher court first?

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: MA Judge rules DOMA is unconstitutional

It's amusing to me that the traditional champions of states' rights aren't out there cheering for this decision. HRC or someone ought to be issuing press releases titled "Huge Victory for States' Rights". That would really get people to thinking about where they really stand.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Equal marriage in Massachusetts and the Federal gov't.

A great article about an excellent legal decision in Massachusetts.

http://www.slate.com/id/2260039

This is exactly the same kind of path it took in Canada for us to get equality nation-wide. It is working And it looks like Obama is not trying very hard in court so DOMA can fail.

Obama's good at not trying very hard.

I'd be happier if he directed the AG to make an announcement similar to what was done in California concerning Prop 8: that the government sees no basis on which DOMA can be defended.

 

[rareboy]

Re: MA Judge rules DOMA is unconstitutional

^ Quoted for truth.

Most of those who bellow and bluster about States rights when it means they can limit or destroy personal liberties and rights will now come barrelling out of their burrows begging for something conclusive at the Federal level.

The thing though, is that the test of states' rights over gay marriage can't come before the Supreme Court. There is no way that the rights of states versus the federal judiciary will ever be tested on this case unless everyone just plumb loses their minds.

 

[construct]

Re: MA Judge rules DOMA is unconstitutional

The thing though, is that the test of states' rights over gay marriage can't come before the Supreme Court. There is no way that the rights of states versus the federal judiciary will ever be tested on this case unless everyone just plumb loses their minds.

Why do you say that? First, I'm not really sure what it means. Second, conflicts between states and the federal government are decided by the Supreme Court all the time.

Why should it be strange for this case to go all the way up?

 

[BostonPirate]

Re: MA Judge rules DOMA is unconstitutional

wait wait wait.....

If the Obama admin does not challenge the ruling on behalf of the gov't then stands and can be used in other lawsuits as case law?

that is rather intriguing if it is the case.

 

[construct]

Re: MA Judge rules DOMA is unconstitutional

If DOMA doesn't exceed the scope of Congress' authority, then no law about interpersonal relationships does. It's discriminatory on the face of it, so to say it is within their authority means discrimination is within their authority. If DOMA is legitimate exercise of federal power, then Congress could have passed a law against interracial marriage and it would have been legitimate, or a law against two people of great difference in height, or a blind person and a sighted person.....

I was addressing the issue of whether the federal government can define a term like 'marriage' in order to clarify what is counted as marriage in other laws--the tax code, for instance. On its face, the necessary and proper clause gives Congress the authority to define terms used in statutes including the term 'marriage.'

So now that Congress has the authority to say what a marriage is for purposes of federal law, we'll want to know whether they defined it in such a way that it violates some other provision of the Constitution. Now we can talk about due process and equal protection issues.

The District Court in Massachusetts, however, reached a different opinion. They said that Congress had always let the states say who was married, even for purposes of federal law. If a couple were living in Massachusetts and Massachusetts recognized the marriage, then the federal government did, too. Since there had been no necessity for a federal definition of marriage in the past and since nothing has really changed, there is no necessity for one now. So Congress was encroaching on power reserved to the states.

The District Court went on to say that this purported federal definition of marriage not only exceeds Congressional authority but also violates the Constitutional requirement of equal protection.