• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

DOMA shot down in the 1st

crimresearch

Alumbrado
crimresearch
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
10,600
DOMA ruled unconstitutional by 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

This may belong in Politics; I'm not sure, but I figured I'd start here since gay marriage is more of a social issue IMO.

DOMA ruled Unconsitutional by 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

Specifically, they ruled that the portion of DOMA that denies federal benefits to legally married gay couples (such as the right to file a joint tax return) is unconstitutional, but the decision was unanimous. It can't be enforced until it goes to the Supreme Court, but I find this news encouraging, personally. It may not have ruled on whether states that ban same-sex marriage will be required to recognize legally performed gay marriages that were completed in states that allow it, or whether the denial of gay marriage is in itself unconstitutional, but it's a step in the right direction. I certainly hope the trend continues with the Supreme Court and that they finally rule the denial of the right to marry unconstitutional, so that people who are in love, no matter what their gender, can marry without hindrance.

ETA: Whoops, I'm three minutes behind crimresearch I see; I'll ask the mods to merge the threads.
 
Last edited:
Good on 'em. It's rather simple, really: marriage is a contract that confers benefits from the Federal Government. Not allowing any two adults to enter into the contract runs afoul of the equal protection clause. Probably also the Civil Rights Act due to gender discrimination.
I have never heard a halfway cogent argument against gay marriage. Even at the state level, the fact that there are so many privileges and benefits bestowed on married couples makes the prevention of marriage by some arbitrary standard of "traditional" hard to defend. As for the states trying to "not recognize" a legal contract granted in another state, the Supreme Court has already got precedent for contracts being recognized, even if they wouldn't be legally entered into in the state in question.
 
The good news (besides the decision itself) is that it is unlikely the Supremes will decline to hear the case - and it seems promising that they would uphold this (relatively narrow) decision.
 
autumn1971 said:
Good on 'em. It's rather simple, really: marriage is a contract that confers benefits from the Federal Government. Not allowing any two adults to enter into the contract runs afoul of the equal protection clause. Probably also the Civil Rights Act due to gender discrimination.
I have never heard a halfway cogent argument against gay marriage. Even at the state level, the fact that there are so many privileges and benefits bestowed on married couples makes the prevention of marriage by some arbitrary standard of "traditional" hard to defend. As for the states trying to "not recognize" a legal contract granted in another state, the Supreme Court has already got precedent for contracts being recognized, even if they wouldn't be legally entered into in the state in question.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, this decision does not directly affect the right to marry in any state or the right to have a legal marriage in one state recognized in the other states. Those two issues will have to be dealt with seperately.
 
I notice it's one of the few stories that Fox News doesn't allow Comments on. It would probably overload their servers if they did.
 
sarge said:
Unfortunately, this decision does not directly affect the right to marry in any state or the right to have a legal marriage in one state recognized in the other states. Those two issues will have to be dealt with seperately.
Click to expand...


Yes, but it is one step at a time.
 
tomwaits said:
What makes you so confident that the SCOTUS is affirm the ruling?
Click to expand...

I'm guessing logic.

That married gay couples are married is inarguable. That marriage confers certain benefits codified in federal law is inarguable. That the Constitution prohibits the denial of equal protection under the law is inarguable. All that I can see for the bigots to argue is that somehow, denying equal benefit of the law is not denying equal protection under tha law.

I believe the other two provisions of DOMA are more succeptable to the current right-leaning bias of the SCOTUS.
 
sarge said:
I'm guessing logic.
Click to expand...

I've ceased being surprised by the bizarre rulings that the Roberts court has issued, especially when it comes to civil rights.

For one lesser known but important example, read about how in Iqbal and Twombly the court stumbled into settled civil procedure law and basically overruled 50 years of legislation and precedent in order to make it more difficult for civil rights plaintiffs to survive a motion to dismiss.
 
Last edited:
tomwaits said:
What makes you so confident that the SCOTUS is affirm the ruling?
Click to expand...
Reading the tests and reasoning explicated in their other 14th amendment cases and extrapolating it to these circumstances.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom