MA Judge rules DOMA is unconstitutional [MERGED]

[hotatlboi]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/07/judge_declares_3.html

A federal district court judge in Boston today struck down the 1996 federal law that defines marriage as a union exclusively between a man and a woman.

Judge Joseph L. Tauro ruled that the federal Defense of Marriage law violates the Constitutional right of married same-sex couples to equal protection under the law and upends the federal government’s long history of allowing states to set their own marriage laws.

"This court has determined that it is clearly within the authority of the Commonwealth to recognize same-sex marriages among its residents, and to afford those individuals in same-sex marriages any benefits, rights, and privileges to which they are entitled by virtue of their marital status," Tauro wrote. "The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state."

Good sign here.

Now if Judge Walker can follow and invalidate prop 8, maybe we can get a trend going.

 

[KTheLibra]

Re: MA Judge rules DOMA is unconstitutional

I saw this on Twitter. Made me happy.

 

[Kensei]

Re: MA Judge rules DOMA is unconstitutional

Just saw this online. Amazing. Is it set in stone that married couples will get federal protections and recognition now?

Edit: Of course the opposition is calling it legislating from the bench again. Truth forbid that the judge actually did his job and actually found it unconstitutional.

 

[hotatlboi]

Re: MA Judge rules DOMA is unconstitutional

Just saw this online. Amazing. Is it set in stone that married couples will get federal protections and recognition now?

Absolutely not. An appeals court or the SCOTUS could still overturn it.

 

[Jory]

Re: MA Judge rules DOMA is unconstitutional

I think only a judge in the 9th circuit has the power to do that and prop 8 isn't federal law it's state law

 

[hotatlboi]

Re: MA Judge rules DOMA is unconstitutional

I think only a judge in the 9th circuit has the power to do that and prop 8 isn't federal law it's state law

yes, Judge Walker is the Judge in the prop 8 trial.

The judge in this case was Judge Joseph L. Tauro.

Doesn't matter whether it is federal or state law. If a federal court finds that it violates the US Constitution then it can overturn it.

 

[hotatlboi]

Re: MA Judge rules DOMA is unconstitutional

This could be a good thing or a bad thing though.

What this ruling basically said is that it's a state issue and the federal government can't limit marriage to a discriminatory definition.

The ruling didn't invalidate the full faith and credit exemption for marriage part of DOMA though.

So if the ruling stands it would basically mean that once states pass gay marriage the citizens who are married there can get federal marriage benefits but only in those states. So it could be a long time before all states define marriage equally to include gays.

 

[BostonPirate]

Re: MA Judge rules DOMA is unconstitutional

I love my home state for this and so many other reasons. Now scotus will have to have a go at it.

the homophobic republican party will never let this one go without a challenge.

However... Massachusetts, the place where this whole america thing began, will never tolerate separating people from their civil rights.

We owe it to Pres Adams to make sure of that.

 

[palemale]

Re: MA Judge rules DOMA is unconstitutional

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/07/judge_declares_3.html



Good sign here.

Now if Judge Walker can follow and invalidate prop 8, maybe we can get a trend going.

Judge Tauro's case is not binding authority for Judge Walker, or any other federal judge. It is, however, persuasive authority. If anything, however, it would not help because it stands for the proposition that the federal government does not have the power to abrogate state marriage laws that are properly enacted. In other words, under the constitutional scheme, Massachusetts has the right to decide who can marry who, and the federal government can not abrogate that right. Thus, Prop 8 would have to be found to be a violation of the US Constitution for it to be struck down.

 

[hotatlboi]

Re: MA Judge rules DOMA is unconstitutional

Judge Tauro's case is not binding authority for Judge Walker, or any other federal judge. It is, however, persuasive authority. If anything, however, it would not help because it stands for the proposition that the federal government does not have the power to abrogate state marriage laws that are properly enacted. In other words, under the constitutional scheme, Massachusetts has the right to decide who can marry who, and the federal government can not abrogate that right. Thus, Prop 8 would have to be found to be a violation of the US Constitution for it to be struck down.

yeah and like I said in my post above, I do kind of see that.

In some ways the motivation for this decision is the opposite that of the prop 8 case argument.

That case seeks to make it a fundamental right based on the due process clause and the inconsistent treatment gay couples have received in CA whereas this ruling is basically taking the position that it isn't a federal question.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: MA Judge rules DOMA is unconstitutional

This could be a good thing or a bad thing though.

What this ruling basically said is that it's a state issue and the federal government can't limit marriage to a discriminatory definition.

The ruling didn't invalidate the full faith and credit exemption for marriage part of DOMA though.

So if the ruling stands it would basically mean that once states pass gay marriage the citizens who are married there can get federal marriage benefits but only in those states. So it could be a long time before all states define marriage equally to include gays.

But the full faith and credit exemption can't stand before the other half of his reasoning, that of equal protection before the law: if a couple is married in one state but not married any longer if they move to another state, they don't have equal protection under the law.

I think the strength of the ruling lies in the use of two different constitutional bases.

 

[MercuryJones]

Re: MA Judge rules DOMA is unconstitutional

So if the ruling stands it would basically mean that once states pass gay marriage the citizens who are married there can get federal marriage benefits but only in those states. So it could be a long time before all states define marriage equally to include gays.

It's still a good thing. If the federal govt is made to recognize state marriages, even lacking enforcement of Full Faith & Credit, at least some gay people will have the choice of full legal recognition.



Incidentally, Judge Joseph Tauro was the chief legal counsel to Republican MA Governor John Volpe, until he was nominated for Federal Judge by President Richard Nixon.

 

[hotatlboi]

Re: MA Judge rules DOMA is unconstitutional

It's still a good thing. If the federal govt is made to recognize state marriages, even lacking enforcement of Full Faith & Credit, at least some gay people will have the choice of full legal recognition.

Yes I agree it is good in that sense.

The only negative I was referencing is that if the reasoning in this case is applied to others, such as the prop 8 case, it could serve to defeat any attempt to demonstrate a fundamental right to gay marriage under the US Constitution. If it is not a federal question then the courts could simply dismiss those challenges.

 

[BostonPirate]

Re: MA Judge rules DOMA is unconstitutional

but....

is it not law that one states marriage has to be accepted in the others?

isn't that why some states like nevada have instant marriage laws? and divorce as well...

how does this fit in here. I am trying to read this all and take it in, but you guys are all over the map.

in the end, someone is going to have to make california accept gay massachusetts marriage as real, and at that point its all a wash.

 

[hotatlboi]

Re: MA Judge rules DOMA is unconstitutional

is it not law that one states marriage has to be accepted in the others?

Only if DOMA is invalidated in toto, which this ruling does not do as far as I can tell.

Perhaps construct could explain it better.

Here is a link to the ruling: http://www.mass.gov/Cago/docs/civilrights/DOMA Decision.pdf

 

[braex27]

Re: MA Judge rules DOMA is unconstitutional

HUZZAH!! A good win, guys!!

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: MA Judge rules DOMA is unconstitutional

Yes I agree it is good in that sense.

The only negative I was referencing is that if the reasoning in this case is applied to others, such as the prop 8 case, it could serve to defeat any attempt to demonstrate a fundamental right to gay marriage under the US Constitution. If it is not a federal question then the courts could simply dismiss those challenges.

But with interacial marriage, the Court found that individual rights provisions of the Constitution trumped states' authority. The same reasoning would have to apply here, since the subject, marriage, is the same.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: MA Judge rules DOMA is unconstitutional

Nice article, JB.

 

[construct]

Re: MA Judge rules DOMA is unconstitutional

Federal and state recognition of migrating marriages 101. Here's how it works.

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.

States may regulate marriage as they see fit under the Tenth Amendment.

The full faith and credit clause has never been held to require states to recognize each other's marriages. States have some variation on the 'place of celebration rule.' If a marriage is valid in the place where it was celebrated, then it's valid in this state, too.

There is an exception to the place of celebration rule for marriages that violate strong public policy. Which parts of state marriage regulations are strong public policy varies from state to state.

Let's take an example. A couple from New Jersey go off to college in Austin. Texas has an informal marriage law. Under the Texas law, if a couple agree that they are married, live together, and tell other people in Texas they are married, then they're married. Our couple does all that. When they return to New Jersey, are they still married? Would they have to get a divorce in order to marry someone else? Would they be able to depend on New Jersey's intestacy laws should one of them die? It depends on whether New Jersey has strong public policy against informal or common-law marriages. Some states do. Some states don't.

Can they file a joint income tax return? Yes, because the federal government follows the place of celebration rule except for its strong public policy against same-sex marriages as evidenced in DOMA.

I think this outline and example should answer a few of the questions that have been raised.

 

[construct]

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.

It does. This new case reasons that since the federal government has always followed state marriage regulations and definitions in the past, it has no authority to find one now. There isn't a particular need to have a consistent definition of marriage in order to carry out its duties.

It then goes on to the equal protection issue.