Court rules Federal Gay Marriage Ban unconstitutional

[FatDumbOxycontinAbuser]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/08/gay-marriage-ban-unconsti_n_639998.html

BOSTON (Associated Press) -- 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.

Nancy Gill, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit brought by GLAD, said she is "thrilled" with the rulings.

Story continues below

"I'm so happy I can't even put it into words," she said.

Gill and Marcelle Letourneau married in Massachusetts in 2004 after being together for more than 20 years.

When Gill, a U.S. postal worker, tried to add Letourneau to her family health plan, she was denied. The couple were forced to get separate insurance for Letourneau, who has a medical transcription business at home and does administrative work for the local Visiting Nurse Association.

Letourneau called the rulings "life-changing."

"I can get on Nancy's insurance," she said. "That's just a huge victory, and it gives us peace of mind."

Coakley called it a "landmark decision" and "an important step toward achieving equality for all married couples in Massachusetts."

The Justice Department had argued the federal government had the right to set eligibility requirements for federal benefits - including requiring that those benefits go only to couples in marriages between a man and a woman.

Opponents of gay marriage said they were certain the rulings would be overturned on appeal.

Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, called Tauro's ruling "judicial activism" and said Tauro was a "rogue judge." Gay marriage advocates will keep pushing their agenda in the courts, she said, but noted voters consistently have rejected gay marriage at the ballot box, including in a recent California vote.

"We can't allow the lowest common denominator states, like Massachusetts, to set standards for the country," Lafferty said.

Tom McClusky, senior vice president of the conservative Family Research Council, said the rulings result in part from "the deliberately weak legal defense of DOMA" that the Obama administration mounted on behalf of the government.

"While the American people have made it unmistakably clear that they want to preserve marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman, liberals and activist judges are not content to let the people decide," McClusky said in a statement.

The law was enacted by Congress in 1996 when it appeared Hawaii would soon legalize same-sex marriage and opponents worried that other states would be forced to recognize such marriages. The lawsuit challenges only the portion of the law that prevents the federal government from affording pension and other benefits to same-sex couples.

Since then, five states and the District of Columbia have legalized gay marriage.

Boston College professor Kent Greenfield, a constitutional law expert, said the rulings could have a legal impact outside Massachusetts if they're appealed and a higher court with a broader jurisdiction agrees.

An appeal would be considered by the First Circuit, which also includes Rhode Island, Maine and New Hampshire.

"One things that's going to be really interesting to watch is whether the Obama administration appeals or not," he said.

Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said the department is reviewing the decision.

Greenfield added the rulings might encourage other attorneys general who oppose DOMA to sue to try to knock it down.

[FatDumbOxycontinAbuser]

I laugh that opponents speak of "activist judges" in this regard. The Judge found that this is an issue to be addressed by the States. Isn't that something the Conservatives should be happy about? Conservatives are always complaining about the Feds overstepping their authority delegated by the Constitution.

This does nothing but affirm what I have been saying for a while. Conservatives use the term "acivist judge" to describe any judge who does something they don't agree with, regardless of circumstances.

[Peter for President]

I laugh that opponents speak of "activist judges" in this regard. The Judge found that this is an issue to be addressed by the States. Isn't that something the Conservatives should be happy about? Conservatives are always complaining about the Feds overstepping their authority delegated by the Constitution.

This does nothing but affirm what I have been saying for a while. Conservatives use the term "acivist judge" to describe any judge who does something they don't agree with, regardless of circumstances.
It definitely should be a state issue. I guess the main argument that it could be a federal thing would be regarding taxes.

[KinjaKahn]

I laugh that opponents speak of "activist judges" in this regard. The Judge found that this is an issue to be addressed by the States. Isn't that something the Conservatives should be happy about? Conservatives are always complaining about the Feds overstepping their authority delegated by the Constitution.

This does nothing but affirm what I have been saying for a while. Conservatives use the term "acivist judge" to describe any judge who does something they don't agree with, regardless of circumstances.
congrats fatdumb!! Have picked out your dress yet?

[FatDumbOxycontinAbuser]

congrats fatdumb!! Have picked out your dress yet?

Not surprised that this is the best you can do here.

Especially appropriate considering this is the Think Tank.

[thejerseydevil]

50 years from now nobody is going to understand why this was a big political issue.

[domenick2x]

It definitely should be a state issue. I guess the main argument that it could be a federal thing would be regarding taxes.
IRS sets the rules for who can be a dependent on Insurance.

Check that. Not fully correct. IRS determines who can be a pre-tax dependent. For others, they can be ON the coverage, but have to pay the imputed income on the value of the coverage. It's a freaking mess.

[Peter for President]

IRS sets the rules for who can be a dependent on Insurance.

Check that. Not fully correct. IRS determines who can be a pre-tax dependent. For others, they can be ON the coverage, but have to pay the imputed income on the value of the coverage. It's a freaking mess.
What about filing as a married couple? That has to have some impact. I'm not sure how much as I'm not quite to that point yet.

[domenick2x]

What about filing as a married couple? That has to have some impact. I'm not sure how much as I'm not quite to that point yet.
Not sure what you mean. Right now, a married couple pays exactly the same base tax as two individuals. There was a 'marriage penalty', that was phased out, but might be coming back.

DOMA gives support to the IRS regs. If you aren't an other-sex spouse or tax-dependent child, you can't be covered without paying the imputed income. If you do, it's fraud.

[KinjaKahn]

Not surprised that this is the best you can do here.

Especially appropriate considering this is the Think Tank.

LOL did you even read your post???

I laugh that opponents speak of "activist judges" in this regard. The Judge found that this is an issue to be addressed by the States. Isn't that something the Conservatives should be happy about? Conservatives are always complaining about the Feds overstepping their authority delegated by the Constitution.

This does nothing but affirm what I have been saying for a while. Conservatives use the term "acivist judge" to describe any judge who does something they don't agree with, regardless of circumstances.

You don't even address your opinions on the judgment or the topic, or offer any sort of ideas you might have to make this problem come to a middle-ground ... you use this news to attack conservatives. Nothing more. Way to exercise the mind in the think tank.

[FatDumbOxycontinAbuser]

LOL did you even read your post???



You don't even address your opinions on the judgment or the topic, or offer any sort of ideas you might have to make this problem come to a middle-ground ... you use this news to attack conservatives. Nothing more. Way to exercise the mind in the think tank.

How long did it take you to come up with that POS after-the-fact attempt at deflecting?

[KinjaKahn]

How long did it take you to come up with that POS after-the-fact attempt at deflecting?2 seconds after reading it. The only deflection is you trying to get away from being called on using think tank to attack conservatives.

[FatDumbOxycontinAbuser]

2 seconds after reading it. The only deflection is you trying to get away from being called on using think tank to attack conservatives.

LOL, so your first post in the thread isn't calling me out on it but making a completely irrelevant post.

Got it!

[KinjaKahn]

LOL, so your first post in the thread isn't calling me out on it but making a completely irrelevant post.

Got it!First post is Trash for your trash. Second post is calling you on your "brilliant" expounding on the thread title/topic, quite simply, you hijacked your own thread with the second post.

Now you can say "Got it!" :)

[FatDumbOxycontinAbuser]

First post is Trash for your trash. Second post is calling you on your "brilliant" expounding on the thread title/topic, quite simply, you hijacked your own thread with the second post.

Now you can say "Got it!" :)

Just admit you didn't realize this was the TT and move on. Anything else and, as usual, you are full of shit.

[KinjaKahn]

Just admit you didn't realize this was the TT and move on. Anything else and, as usual, you are full of shit.Everytime you open your mouth, and something stupid comes out... you're gonna get it back... it's really amusing that you would assert I didn't know it was "TT", after you totally disregarded the ideas behind the forum and launched attacks on conservatives, it's like your attention span to the topic of the thread is 0... it's funny... really!

[TGPackersTwins19]

Good. This shouldn't be a fed issue.

[domenick2x]

Good. This shouldn't be a fed issue.
Should other states then have to recognize those marriages, ie full faith and credit clause?

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

I laugh that opponents speak of "activist judges" in this regard. The Judge found that this is an issue to be addressed by the States. Isn't that something the Conservatives should be happy about? Conservatives are always complaining about the Feds overstepping their authority delegated by the Constitution.

This does nothing but affirm what I have been saying for a while. Conservatives use the term "acivist judge" to describe any judge who does something they don't agree with, regardless of circumstances. I had no problem with this ruling...so long as States have the right to determine the legality of gay marriage and don't have that right abridged.

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

Should other states then have to recognize those marriages, ie full faith and credit clause?

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. Absolutely not.

All States determine their own alcohol laws.

[kydoty]

Absolutely not.

All States determine their own alcohol laws.

Hell, last weekend I bought fireworks at the South Dakota border. Just don't try to bring those along about 500 yards away in Iowa otherwise you're in for a world of fines.

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

Hell, last weekend I bought fireworks at the South Dakota border. Just don't try to bring those along about 500 yards away in Iowa otherwise you're in for a world of fines. It's like that with specific cities in this county.

One you could buy fireworks in and the next will send the cops out to arrest you for so much as a sparkler being lit.

[domenick2x]

Absolutely not.

All States determine their own alcohol laws.
Virginia v, Loving?

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

Virginia v, Loving?
What does miscegenation and race have to do with gay sex??

[domenick2x]

What does miscegenation and race have to do with gay sex??
States being able to make their own marriage laws.

[pnkpanther]

Hell, last weekend I bought fireworks at the South Dakota border. Just don't try to bring those along about 500 yards away in Iowa otherwise you're in for a world of fines.

I love that if when driving into SD from MN you dont make it more than a 100 yards before you run into to mobile homes selling fireworks stronger than MN ones you can get.

[Peter for President]

Not sure what you mean. Right now, a married couple pays exactly the same base tax as two individuals. There was a 'marriage penalty', that was phased out, but might be coming back.

DOMA gives support to the IRS regs. If you aren't an other-sex spouse or tax-dependent child, you can't be covered without paying the imputed income. If you do, it's fraud.
I guess I thought filing together had advantages. Maybe not.

[Peter for President]

I love that if when driving into SD from MN you dont make it more than a 100 yards before you run into to mobile homes selling fireworks stronger than MN ones you can get.
Land of fireworks....

There are actually some shops on the interstate open all year long. It seems odd that this would be one of those things needed right along borders.

[domenick2x]

I guess I thought filing together had advantages. Maybe not.
Simplifcation, i.e. one filing instead of two. That's about it.

[FatDumbOxycontinAbuser]

Land of fireworks....

There are actually some shops on the interstate open all year long. It seems odd that this would be one of those things needed right along borders.

There are a bunch of fireworks stores right at the PA/Maryland border along Route 15 as well as between PA and NJ on Route 78.

[pnkpanther]

I love that if when driving into SD from MN you dont make it more than a 100 yards before you run into to mobile homes selling fireworks stronger than MN ones you can get.



wow, that's bad even for me.

An extra if and to

[Peter for President]

wow, that's bad even for me.

An extra if and to
I've learned to read pnk. I can't speak it very fluently yet, though.

[FatDumbOxycontinAbuser]

wow, that's bad even for me.

An extra if and to


Regardless of what the Gonzo's of the world think, this board isn't a grammar or spelling exam. We got the point of the post.

[domenick2x]

I've learned to read pnk. I can't speak it very fluently yet, though.
Ditto. I didn't even notice the errors, as I appear to have elevated my game to completely interpret it subconsciously.

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

States being able to make their own marriage laws.Apples and oranges.

Miscegenation violates the 14th Amendment- not merely some State Amendment. Gay marriage has not been ruled by the SCOTUS as doing so.


All this latest ruling does is allow States to continue to ban gay marriage and keep the Feds from banning it. The issue will continue to be decided like it already is.

[domenick2x]

Apples and oranges.

Miscegenation violates the 14th Amendment- not merely some State Amendment. Gay marriage has not been ruled by the SCOTUS as doing so.


All this latest ruling does is allow States to continue to ban gay marriage and keep the Feds from banning it. The issue will continue to be decided like it already is.
Still fruits.

There's some parallel, whether you want to admit it or not.

14th Amendment, Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

Still fruits. ARRRGNT.

Gays aren't being denied any 'right' without due process- per the 14th Amendment- and there really is no parallel to miscegenation.

Thanks for playing. The girls have a nice consolation gift for you backstage.

[domenick2x]

ARRRGNT.

Gays aren't being denied any 'right' without due process- per the 14th Amendment- and there really is no parallel to miscegenation.

Thanks for playing. The girls have a nice consolation gift for you backstage.
Sure they are, and this ruling above agrees.

How about this... there's no Constitutional right to marriage. However, if the government (talking Federal here) recognizes marriage as a right for some (which it does), it has to apply that right to all citizens equally.

[Roy Munson]

Sure they are, and this ruling above agrees.

How about this... there's no Constitutional right to marriage. However, if the government (talking Federal here) recognizes marriage as a right for some (which it does), it has to apply that right to all citizens equally.
bingo.

[thrasymachus]

Absolutely not.

All States determine their own alcohol laws.
I don't think that's exactly relevant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

But I do think leaving it up to the states does create a problem when individuals seek to have their marriage recognized through the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Let's say South Carolina does not allow gay marriage but North Carolina does. Well, can a gay couple from South Carolina go to North Carolina and get married and then force the state of South Carolina to recognize the marriage?

Personally, I don't think it's a state issue -- I think it is a federal Constitutional issue implicating a variety of different rights -- freedom of association, privacy rights, Equal Protection, and a limitation on the pursuit of happiness without any rational basis.

[thrasymachus]

Still fruits.

There's some parallel, whether you want to admit it or not.

14th Amendment, Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Just to play devil's advocate: what exactly does "equal protection" mean?

Does equal protection apply to the taxing power of the government (i.e., must all individuals be taxed equally?)

[Roy Munson]

Just to play devil's advocate: what exactly does "equal protection" mean?

Does equal protection apply to the taxing power of the government (i.e., must all individuals be taxed equally?)
we all fall under the same tax laws... some just at a different rate.

[thrasymachus]

we all fall under the same tax laws... some just at a different rate.
Isn't that the same thing with gay marriage bans? Everybody is allowed to marry somebody of the opposite sex but nobody is allowed to marry somebody of the same sex.

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

I don't think that's exactly relevant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

But I do think leaving it up to the states does create a problem when individuals seek to have their marriage recognized through the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Let's say South Carolina does not allow gay marriage but North Carolina does. Well, can a gay couple from South Carolina go to North Carolina and get married and then force the state of South Carolina to recognize the marriage?

Personally, I don't think it's a state issue -- I think it is a federal Constitutional issue implicating a variety of different rights -- freedom of association, privacy rights, Equal Protection, and a limitation on the pursuit of happiness without any rational basis. Can a couple that lives in a right-to-work State force another State that isn't to accept those rules after a company transfer???

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

we all fall under the same tax laws... some just at a different rate. So basically, we're all 'discriminated' against at varying levels.

Single folks must 'marry' in order to get that extra deduction, right???

That's possibly the worst example for an argument ever presented on this board, Munson.

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

Just to play devil's advocate: what exactly does "equal protection" mean?

Does equal protection apply to the taxing power of the government (i.e., must all individuals be taxed equally?) We're already 'protected' under the same laws. But liberals thought that we needed double-protection and have folks believing that for any law there should be an additional law to make sure minorities- and now gays- get 'equal protection'.

Gays aren't being 'discriminated' against anymore than anybody else if a crime is committed against 'em. An 'assault' is an 'assault' no matter who did what to whom, IMO. However, what law covers a non-gay when a landlord is sued for *not* renting to a non-gay in SF???

There shouldn't even be a need for a separate but equal policy against white folks if they commit a crime against a non-white/non-gay person. The law that would send them to the slammer should cover everybody- not some moreso than others.

BTW, same thing can be said for Affirmative Action, IMO.

[domenick2x]

We're already 'protected' under the same laws. But liberals thought that we needed double-protection and have folks believing that for any law there should be an additional law to make sure minorities- and now gays- get 'equal protection'.

Gays aren't being 'discriminated' against anymore than anybody else if a crime is committed against 'em. An 'assault' is an 'assault' no matter who did what to whom, IMO. However, what law covers a non-gay when a landlord is sued for *not* renting to a non-gay in SF???

There shouldn't even be a need for a separate but equal policy against white folks if they commit a crime against a non-white/non-gay person. The law that would send them to the slammer should cover everybody- not some moreso than others.

BTW, same thing can be said for Affirmative Action, IMO.
I do agree with you completely on the Hate Crimes and Affirmative Action,

But the Feds stepped across a line with DOMA.

"(DOMA) will safeguard the sacred institutions of marriage and the family from
those who seek to destroy them and who are willing to tear apart America’s moral fabric in the
process.”

Any guess who said that?

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

Sure they are, and this ruling above agrees.

How about this... there's no Constitutional right to marriage. However, if the government (talking Federal here) recognizes marriage as a right for some (which it does), it has to apply that right to all citizens equally. Correctamundo.

That's why it should be left up the the States.


And again, no, the Federal Gov't does not have to 'recognize' a marriage for a person who wishes to engage in sexual deviancy.

[domenick2x]

Correctamundo.

That's why it should be left up the the States.


And again, no, the Federal Gov't does not have to 'recognize' a marriage for a person who wishes to engage in sexual deviancy.
If the government defines marraige, then it has to apply protection under the law equally. If it stays the hell out, there's no problem.

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

I do agree with you completely on the Hate Crimes and Affirmative Action,

But the Feds stepped across a line with DOMA. Thus, DOMA will be decided on the States Rights front and not due to some liberal offensive-front by GAYLADEEDAA- or whatever they call themselves.

[domenick2x]

Thus, DOMA will be decided on the States Rights front and not due to some liberal offensive-front by GAYLADEEDAA- or whatever they call themselves.
I can accept that. I personally think expanding gay marriage makes more sense, but I do view some of those social aspects more progressively than most. Once the issue of defining marriage is removed from the federal purview, then the married gays in states that permit it will receive the appropriate benefits.

There will still be fringe issues regarding being married in one state and moving to another... there will have to be some changes in the mechanisms to deal with that.

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

If the government defines marraige, then it has to apply protection under the law equally. If it stays the hell out, there's no problem. Wrong.

The Federal gov't has defined the meaning of 'unions' and 'States rights', and doesn't infringe upon what you'd consider 'inequalities' with regard to each of them.

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

I can accept that. No you can't.

That's exactly why the rest of your post makes excuses for 'gay marriages' to be more than just 'civil unions'.

Be truthful with yourself for once. No, you *can't* accept that one State will consider gay marriages while another won't.

[domenick2x]

No you can't.

That's exactly why the rest of your post makes excuses for 'gay marriages' to be more than just 'civil unions'.

Be truthful with yourself for once. No, you *can't* accept that one State will consider gay marriages while another won't.
I can, fool. Because I say so.

Next time you think you can peek inside my head,,, you can't, If you can, I'll have to pull out a nice passage from Exodus about that.

My biggest issue with the DOMA is that a gay couple in Mass isn't recognized as being married - for taxes, for benefits, etc. A private employer can extend the benefits, but the couple still has to pay excessive taxes on that coverage per the IRS. Eliminate the regs of DOMA, that problem no longer exists.

IF this goes through this way, and states define marriage, the biggest remaining issue is married couples crossing a state border and no longer being married.