A three-judge panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston ruled DOMA unconstitutional today. The decision was purposely very narrow and only ruled that the law "deprives gay couples of the rights and privileges granted to heterosexual couples."
The Defense of Marriage Act was passed by Congress in 1996 and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is the first federal court in the country to rule against the law. The decision was made by two Republican appointees and one Democrat. Republican judges Judge Michael Boudin (appointed by Bush Sr.) and Judge Juan Torruella (appointed by Reagan) ruled the law unconstitutional but left the Supreme Court many outs (pun intended).
The summary of the ruling today:
"To conclude, many Americans believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and most Americans live in states where that is the law today. One virtue of federalism is that it permits this diversity of governance based on local choice, but this applies as well to the states that have chosen to legalize same-sex marriage. Under current Supreme Court authority, Congress' denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married in Massachusetts has not been adequately supported by any permissible federal interest."
The writing is on the wall. Are Republican politicians willing to open their eyes to it?
When gay marriage is looked at without emotion or religion or any of those other tinted lenses; when marriage is reviewed as an issue of legality, the fact is that gay Americans are being discriminated against and are entitled to the same rights as any other married American.
DOMA is a direct violation of the Comity Clause of the U.S. Constitution. It has also been found to violate due process and a section of the federal tax-code.
The Constitution is what the country is based on. American citizens should not allow it to be trampled and used as a political sword ever again.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 19
1: the state of being married
2: a wedding ceremony and attendant festivities
3: a close union
copyright 1989 by Merriam-Webster Inc.
Defining marriage as something sacred between a man and a woman with the divorce rate and the rate of cheating that goes on is the real insult.
No one is asking you to marry them in your church, they are asking to be granted civil marriage, with all the civil rights that that entails. Other churches, that follow Jesus more than the old testament will gladly marry them in the church, you needn't trouble yourself with that.
On several articles you have posted comments in which insisted that marriage is only meant to be between a man and a woman according to God and the Bible. It would be my assertion that you are actually quoting church doctrine and teachings and not biblical scripture attributed to God having spoken such.
Therefore, I would ask exactly where in the Christian Bible and/or the Jewish Torah is God actually quoted as saying that the word "marriage" is excusive to the union of a man and a woman.
If you can quote from the Book, Canon and verse, I'm sure that you will have no further opposing comments on the issue.
It is accurate to state, as you reported in your article, that this is the first federal court to find DOMA to be unConstitutional.
However, let us not forget that in February 2012, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stuck down California's Proposition 8 Amendment as being unConstitutional. The court issued a very similar ruling on same sex marriage as in the case of DOMA.
Since that ruling, 8 states have passed laws affirming same sex marriage as being legal in their individual states.
The interesting part of both rulings, is that the rulings were decided and issued under Federal Law. In the past, the DOJ has always taken the position that marriage is/was a state matter and not a federal matter. However, in both of these recent rulings, new legal precedence has been set and a totally different way of looking at the issue has been employed. That being, that by refusing officially sanctioned marriage between same sex partners is not UnConstitutional under state law but {is} unConstitutional under federal law. This being ruled, because such refusal deprives a certain segment of our society from receiving federal partner and survivor benefits.
Good reporting, it's always nice to read something constructive.
Thanks, Scott.
I think the only reason this got to the federal level was because of DOMA in the first place...that was a federal law and made this a federal issue...when it really should have never been.
Our system is structured so that marriage in one state is marriage in every state. When the first state passed gay marriage, it technically was legal nationwide...and all the politicians knew it....and they passed DOMA to block it before the nation figured it out.
It's all a huge mess now. Something else to distract from fiscal issues.
How does that affect states that have passed constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage? The federal law overrules the state law in that matter then, doesn't it?
If they rule that it IS constitutional, how does that affect states that have already passed gay marriage? It remains legal at the state level?
How does that affect states that have passed constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage? The federal law overrules the state law in that matter then, doesn't it?
I would assume that if such happens, that certain conservative run states which have already passed a ban on same sex marriage, will be scrambling to find some way around the new federal ruling. Others will reason that to push the issue any further, by appealing the SCOTUS ruling to the same court which just made the ruling, would only be a waste of time and state money and more than likely would result in the Supreme Court's refusal to even hear their appeal.
If they rule that it IS constitutional, how does that affect states that have already passed gay marriage? It remains legal at the state level?
I don't see how such can prevail in federal court. Again I would assume that since the issue of a ban on same sex marriage has become a federal issue, I don't see how the SCOTUS can rule other than to find that any ban on same sex marriage to be unConstitutional under/by established federal discriminatory laws and statutes.
These laws have been on the books since the federal government passed the Non Discrimination Act of 1964. It's just a case of any court ever having looked at the issue from a point of federal law, until the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, decided to hear the case of a private organization filing an appeal for the repeal of California's "Proposition 8". Thankfully, it was a court which had the wisdom to realize that federal laws prevailed over state laws when deciding cases involving the possibility of a discriminatory act being committed against a particular segment of society. Always in previous cases, lower federal courts passed the buck by ajudicating that the issue of marriage fell under state laws only. Such courts never took into account that federal discriminatory laws were being broken and therefore federal courts should hear and rule on all such cases.
I am certainly not qualified to offer any real legal point, other than my personal opinion on the subject, as I stated above. But, if common sense means anything, I would say without reservation, that the SCOTUS can only come to but one sane conclusion, that being, federal non discriminatory laws are being broken when a ban of any kind is placed on same sex marriage by a state.
LOL...not a lot of that in Washington these days.
I agree with your thought process and I can only hope that, as I said in the post, that the issues is looked at only as a legal issue and dealt with legally, leaving thoughts and opinions...and politics out of it.