Real World Event Discussions

Federal gay marriage ban is ruled unconstitutional

POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Monday, July 19, 2010 21:02
VIEWED: 5559
PAGE 1 of 7

GEEZER

Friday, July 9, 2010 2:05 AM

Quote:
BOSTON (AP) - The federal law banning gay marriage is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define the institution and therefore denies married gay couples some federal benefits, a federal judge ruled Thursday in Boston.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro ruled in favor of gay couples' rights in two separate challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, a 1996 law that the Obama administration has argued for repealing. The rulings apply to Massachusetts but could have broader implications if they're upheld on appeal.

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 in order to be eligible for federal funding in federal-state partnerships.

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 Gay & 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.

http://wtop.com/?nid=104&sid=1998482

This'll be interesting when it gets to the SCOTUS.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Friday, July 9, 2010 5:31 PM

Bump. So no one has a comment on this?

I was surprised that Clinton signed it instead of vetoing. Don't think it had veto-proof support.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

HKCAVALIER

Friday, July 9, 2010 5:53 PM

Sorry, Geez, was gonna post on this yesterday but the power went out.

Thank you. A little sanity coming out of the halls of power is a welcome sight these days.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NIKI2

Friday, July 9, 2010 5:58 PM

Yes; it will no doubt be a total mess and raise hell, but it would be nice if it worked.

I'm amazed that the right is always screaming about too much government intervention, but they have no problem when it keeps gays from marrying or a woman getting an abortion.

Hypocrisy, thy name is RWA.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

WULFENSTAR

Friday, July 9, 2010 6:37 PM

Or, the better question Nix...

Why do we have to reorganize our society to placate a small percentage of the population? Why are libs/progs all FOR the so-called seperation of church and state, except when they want the state to impose on the church?

KPO

Friday, July 9, 2010 7:28 PM

Quote:
Why are libs/progs all FOR the so-called seperation of church and state, except when they want the state to impose on the church?

I personally don't want to impose anything on the church. I want to resist religion imposing on society and state - and specifically the claim that 'marriage is a religious institution'. It's basically two people choosing to pair and commit to each other - what's inherently religious about it? It's only religious if the people undertaking it choose it to be. Religiousity is optional, spirituality is optional.

I'm all for allowing individual churches/faiths freedom to discriminate, based on their religious convictions. But some churches are willing to perform gay marriage, and many gays desire to be married... why should the government intervene and stop them? Interested to hear 'libertarian' views on this.

Heads should roll

NIKI2

Friday, July 9, 2010 7:40 PM

Quote:
Why are libs/progs all FOR the so-called separation (sic) of church and state, except when they want the state to impose on the church?

The real question is “Why are Conservatives/RWAs all FOR so-called “individual freedom” and less government intrusion, except when they want the church to use the government impose on the our liberties?” KPO has it exactly right. The state doesn’t intrude in religion, but a number of our leaders have let the church intrude in our government, laws and privacy.

So what, exactly, is the state imposing on the church? Want prayer in schools? Send your kid to a religious school; free education is paid for by the government, and is the government's purvue to keep the church out of it. Want to prevent gay marriages? Have your religion forbid it. Want to prevent abortion? Have your church forbid it. But don't make the STATE forbid it.

So let’s see some examples of the state imposing anything wrongly on any religion/church...I dare you.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

GEEZER

Friday, July 9, 2010 8:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Sorry, Geez, was gonna post on this yesterday but the power went out.

Thank you. A little sanity coming out of the halls of power is a welcome sight these days.

HKCavalier

The Defense of Marriage Act is THE big deal in equal rights for same-sex couples in the U.S., because it denies any Federal benefits to them...Joint tax filing, survivor benefits for Federal retirement and Social Security, joint coverage in Federal employee health care, just a whole bunch of stuff that state laws in regard to civil unions or same-sex marriage can't affect.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NIKI2

Friday, July 9, 2010 8:09 PM

Yup. I agree. I hope it's successfully challenged. The idea that someone can be dying in a hospital and their loving partner can't even visit them, or that they can die and said partner has no rights to anything, while a family which may well have cut the person off BECAUSE they're homosexual gets everything, is disgusting to me.

I meant to thank you for posting this, by the way. Thank you.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

WULFENSTAR

Friday, July 9, 2010 8:46 PM

Nix, a civil union covers this.