DOMA ruled unconstitutional

[drkitten]

Right. The judge ruled that DOMA violated the fourteenth amendment because its definition of marriage doesn't provide equal protection to homosexuals. Therefore, DOMA is an invalid law. If that is the case then any law, state or federal, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman would be be a violation of the fourteenth amendment so, this ruling, if upheld, would overturn the laws of many states.

Which, of course, is more or less what Loving v. Virginia did. The judge found that the state law violated the 14th amendment, and thereby invalidated that law and many similar ones in other states.

Meanwhile, in part of the same opinion, the judge invoked the tenth amendment to say that the federal government was not allowed to dictate to states how they define marriage.

That's right. The Federal government is not allowed to dictate to state how they define marriage. The Constitution, however, can and does dictate that certain discriminatory definitions are not acceptable.

No conflict.

 

[Meadmaker]

Which, of course, is more or less what Loving v. Virginia did. The judge found that the state law violated the 14th amendment, and thereby invalidated that law and many similar ones in other states.



That's right. The Federal government is not allowed to dictate to state how they define marriage. The Constitution, however, can and does dictate that certain discriminatory definitions are not acceptable.

No conflict.

I'm so glad we agree.

 

[KingMerv00]

I'm so glad we agree.

So do you still think the holdings are "weird"?

 

[Meadmaker]

I assume that what is actually happening here is that he is preparing lines for an appeal.

As odd as it may seem, not everyone agrees that the fourteenth amendment grants access to same sex marriage. Just in case the appeals court includes such people, the tenth amendment portion is the back up plan. He's basically saying that no one has the authority to disallow same sex marriage, but just in case anyone does, it's the state government.

So do you still think the holdings are "weird"?

Yes.

The tenth gets a lot of play among right wingers who want to see a whole heck of a lot of federal government programs thrown out on the grounds that only the states have that power. It doesn't get so much play from people who think that the way states have defined marriage laws is unconstitutional.

 

[KingMerv00]

The tenth gets a lot of play among right wingers who want to see a whole heck of a lot of federal government programs thrown out on the grounds that only the states have that power. It doesn't get so much play from people who think that the way states have defined marriage laws is unconstitutional.

*Throws the 10th amendment at the wall. It sticks.*

YAY!

(Can't blame them for trying.)