DOMA ruled unconstitutional

[Upchurch]

Federal gay marriage ban is ruled unconstitutional

BOSTON – 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.

It's a big step. Not a full win, but a big step.

 

[Puppycow]

Which side of this is Obama on?

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.

Will the Decision Invalidating DOMA Section 3 Be Overruled?

If the Obama Administration’s Justice Department declined to appeal the ruling, the point would be moot and the ruling would stand.

Which side of history is he on? The fence?

 

[Upchurch]

Which side of this is Obama on?

Does it matter? It's an issue for the courts now.

 

[ZirconBlue]

Does it matter? It's an issue for the courts now.

Only if it's appealed, right? Otherwise the ruling stands. And it would be up to the Justice Department whether to appeal and continue to defend the act.

From NPR this morning:

Obama administration lawyers are not yet commenting but an appeal is likely.

The president opposes DOMA but administration lawyers say it's their job to defend the law, and they can't pick and chose based on their policy preferences.

Which doesn't really jibe with their decision not to enforce the federal law on medical marijuana in states where state law makes it's use legal.

 

[CynicalSkeptic]

Or immigration law.

 

[carlitos]

Another victory for states rights delivered by a Republican-appointed judge. More please.

 

[Suddenly]

Which doesn't really jibe with their decision not to enforce the federal law on medical marijuana in states where state law makes it's use legal.

The marijuana issue is more about law enforcement prioritizing. The issue of an executive discretion in law enforcement can be sticky. He is sworn to uphold the law, but the constitution is the law and he has inherent powers of discretion to avoid injustice.

IMO if he thinks DOMA sucks, but it is probably constitutional, he has a duty to appeal. If they honestly believe it unconstitutional, then maybe not.

In Obama's shoes, I would want the case to go forward just to get a ruling from a higher court. That brings up a few weird conflict issues though, appealing something you want to lose.

 

[ZirconBlue]

The marijuana issue is more about law enforcement prioritizing. The issue of an executive discretion in law enforcement can be sticky. He is sworn to uphold the law, but the constitution is the law and he has inherent powers of discretion to avoid injustice.

IMO if he thinks DOMA sucks, but it is probably constitutional, he has a duty to appeal. If they honestly believe it unconstitutional, then maybe not.

In Obama's shoes, I would want the case to go forward just to get a ruling from a higher court. That brings up a few weird conflict issues though, appealing something you want to lose.

Yeah. I wonder what would happen if they appealed it to the Supreme Court and then deliberately made a really half-assed argument to support it.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Yeah. I wonder what would happen if they appealed it to the Supreme Court and then deliberately made a really half-assed argument to support it.

If proven? Probably disbarment. That seems to me to be one of the few unethical things that a lawyer can do: intentionally lose his clients case.

 

[Suddenly]

Yeah. I wonder what would happen if they appealed it to the Supreme Court and then deliberately made a really half-assed argument to support it.

....somewhere in the bowels of the offices at Justice there sits a lawyer nobody has the heart to fire because he tries but, bless his heart, he isn't very bright wondering why he is assigned such a high-profile case....

 

[Beerina]

I thought it just forbade using federal law to force other states to recognize a particular state's gay marriage.

 

[Upchurch]

I thought it just forbade using federal law to force other states to recognize a particular state's gay marriage.

DOMA

The law, also known as DOMA, had two effects:

1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
2. The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.

I believe I read elsewhere that it was the second part that was ruled on.

 

[Complexity]

Obama is opposed to gay marriage.

 

[Upchurch]

Obama is opposed to gay marriage.

but against DOMA

Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage. In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."
Barack Obama did vote against a Federal Marriage Amendment and opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.

He said he would support civil unions between gay and lesbian couples, as well as letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized.

From the White House Web site: President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.

(source)

eta: as long as he doesn't let his religious feelings get in the way of his being President, I don't care if he does personally oppose gay marriage. On this issue, I haven't seen any indication that he has.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I think just how far Obama has alienated the gays is showing in the reactions I am seeing.

And since when was full faith and credit a bad thing…

 

[Complexity]

but against DOMA

(source)

eta: as long as he doesn't let his religious feelings get in the way of his being President, I don't care if he does personally oppose gay marriage. On this issue, I haven't seen any indication that he has.

He is against DOMA, and that is good.

He has, however, been poor to mediocre on gay issues (apart from opposing gay marriage, for which he sucks) since reaching office.

On several other issues, however, I have found his and his administration's behavior to be abominable.

I voted for him last time. I won't vote for him the next time. My feelings on the gay issues aren't the deciding factor.

 

[Cleon]

Only if it's appealed, right? Otherwise the ruling stands. And it would be up to the Justice Department whether to appeal and continue to defend the act.

From NPR this morning:



Which doesn't really jibe with their decision not to enforce the federal law on medical marijuana in states where state law makes it's use legal.

I admit my complete ignorance of the legal issues, but to me there's a difference between the DOJ choosing to enforce law versus defending it in court.

Of course, it would make more sense (to me, anyway) if it was the other way around; required to enforce the law, but not necessarily defend it in court.

 

[mortimer]

I don't see why the Executive branch should be obligated to defend the constitutionality of a law that was signed by a previous administration. In actuality, I don't see why the Executive branch should be obligated to defend the constitutionality of a law that the current administration signed, although obviously this would almost certainly happen.

 

[Complexity]

I don't see why the Executive branch should be obligated to defend the constitutionality of a law that was signed by a previous administration. In actuality, I don't see why the Executive branch should be obligated to defend the constitutionality of a law that the current administration signed, although obviously this would almost certainly happen.

I find it hard to believe that Obama would choose to defend the constituonality of a law that supported slavery.

This talk of feeling obligated to defend existing laws in court is simply an excuse for not doing the right thing.

 

[Brainster]

I find it hard to believe that Obama would choose to defend the constituonality of a law that supported slavery.

Try looking up the 13th amendment sometime. Sort of short-circuits that argument.