Sec. 3 of DOMA ruled unconstitutional by district court

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Cue in the rhetoric wrath of the religious right

Judge declares US gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

A federal district court judge in Boston today struck down the 1996 federal law that defines marriage as a union exclusively between a man and a woman.

Judge Joseph L. Tauro ruled that the federal Defense of Marriage law violates the Constitutional right of married same-sex couples to equal protection under the law and upends the federal government’s long history of allowing states to set their own marriage laws.

"This court has determined that it is clearly within the authority of the Commonwealth to recognize same-sex marriages among its residents, and to afford those individuals in same-sex marriages any benefits, rights, and privileges to which they are entitled by virtue of their marital status," Tauro wrote. "The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state."

Tauro drew on history in his ruling, writing that the states have set their own marriage since before the American Revolution and that marriage laws were considered "such an essential element of state power" that the subject was even broached at the time of the framing of the Constitution. Tauro noted that laws barring interracial marriage were once at least as contentious as the current battle over gay marriage.

“But even as the debate concerning interracial marriage waxed and waned throughout history, the federal government consistently yielded to marital status determinations established by the states,” Tauro wrote. “That says something. And this court is convinced that the federal government’s long history of acquiescence in this arena indicates that, indeed, the federal government traditionally regarded marital status determinations as the exclusive province of state government.”

Gay rights activists cheered the ruling, saying it affirmed that same-sex couples are entitled to the same federal spousal benefits and protections as other married couples.
The Boston-based group Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders had, in March 2009, brought one of two suits challenging the law, on behalf of seven married same-sex couples and three widowers from Massachusetts who contended that it violated their federal constitutional right to equal protection.

“Today the court simply affirmed that our country won’t tolerate second-class marriages,” said Mary Bonauto, a lawyer from the group who argued successfully in the 2003 Supreme Judicial Court case that first legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. “This ruling will make a real difference for countless families in Massachusetts.”

Attorney General Martha Coakley, who brought the second suit challenging the law, also applauded the ruling. Her office had argued that the federal law, known as DOMA, violates the Constitution by interfering with the state’s authority to define and regulate the marital status of its residents.

Coakley’s office also contended that DOMA exceeds Congress’s authority because it requires Massachusetts to violate the constitutional rights of its residents by treating married same-sex couples differently from other married couples in order to receive federal funds for various programs.

“Today’s landmark decision is an important step toward achieving equality for all married couples in Massachusetts and assuring that all of our citizens enjoy the same rights and protections under our Constitution,” Coakley said in a statement. “It is unconstitutional for the federal government to discriminate, as it does because of DOMA’s restrictive definition of marriage. It is also unconstitutional for the federal government to decide who is married and to create a system of first- and second-class marriages.”

Opponents of same-sex marriage condemned the ruling. Kris Mineau, president of Massachusetts Family Institute called it “another blatant example of a judge playing legislator.”

“Same-sex marriage activists have tried time and time again to win public approval of their agenda, and they have failed each time,” Mineau said in a statement. “This is why their strategy is to force same-sex ‘marriage’ through judicial fiat, as they did here in Massachusetts and other states.”

He said he was “confident that an appeals court, and ultimately the Supreme Court, will uphold the government’s right to define marriage, strengthening and protecting children and families.”

The law was defended in court by the US Justice Department, even though President Obama supports DOMA’s repeal and has called the law discriminatory. In a hearing with Tauro in May, the Justice Department argued that Congress and President Clinton, who signed the law, had a legitimate interest in preserving marriage as a heterosexual institution.

Today, a Justice Department spokeswoman, Tracy Schmaler, declined to comment on Tauro’s ruling, saying in a statement, “We're reviewing the decision.”

For christ sakes, Obama, PLEASE don't appeal.

[Kanastrous]

Seems pretty unlikely that he will, don't you think?

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Seems pretty unlikely that he will, don't you think?

I don't know... There's hoping he's the "fierce advocate" he sold himself as during the campaign.

[General Zod]

Beat you to it. http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=143658

[Aaron]

Seems he's screwed either way. If he doesn't appeal then the GOP gets to slam him for not supporting "traditional values" (or whatever the talking point is for keeping gays down) and if he doesn't appeal and then pushes to have it abolished later, he gets the same treatment. Naturally if he does appeal, he gets slammed by the homosexuals who presumably voted for him.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

As an added bonus, the Judge also stated in his ruling that the law restricting marriage between opposite genders does not even pass the rational basis test.

Beat you to it. http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=143658

SonOfABitch! lol It's gonna be thread merging time!

[Aaron]

As an added bonus, the Judge also stated in his ruling that the law restricting marriage between opposite genders does not even pass the rational basis test.

I'm sorry but your going to have to explain that one.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

As an added bonus, the Judge also stated in his ruling that the law restricting marriage between opposite genders does not even pass the rational basis test.

I'm sorry but your going to have to explain that one.

When applying the 14th amendment to any given case, the judge or justices have to look at what class (in this case, gay and lesbian people/couples) is in question. There's strict scrutiny (race, religion, national origin), intermediate scrutiny (gender, age) and rational basis (immigrants, mentally handicapped, etc). Strict scrutiny is the toughest level for a law to pass constitutional muster whereas rational basis classes are subject to discriminatory laws as long as the defendants can prove there's a legitimate government reason for it. There is no record of classifying the LGBT population as a specific class but the judge in his ruling said he didn't need to determine that since the law doesn't even pass the lowest form of class scrutiny (rational basis). This is similar to the SCOTUS ruling in Romer v Evans where the court stopped just short of declaring the LGBT population a specific class because they said the law in question was motivated purely by animus and such laws cannot even pass the rational basis test.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

This court can readily dispose of the notion that denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages might encourage responsible procreation, because the government concedes that this objective bears no rational relationship to the operation of DOMA. Since the enactment of DOMA, a consensus has developed among the medical, psychological, and social welfare communities that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are just as likely to be well-adjusted as those raised by heterosexual parents. But even if Congress believed at the time of DOMA’s passage that children had the best chance at success if raised jointly by their biological mothers and fathers, a desire to encourage heterosexual couples to procreate and rear their own children more responsibly would not provide a rational basis for denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages. Such denial does nothing to promote stability in heterosexual parenting. Rather, it “prevent children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure,” when afforded equal recognition under federal law.

Moreover, an interest in encouraging responsible procreation plainly cannot provide a rational basis upon which to exclude same-sex marriages from federal recognition because, as Justice Scalia pointed out in his dissent to Lawrence v. Texas, the ability to procreate is not now, nor has it ever been, a precondition to marriage in any state in the country. Indeed, “the sterile and the elderly” have never been denied the right to marry by any of the fifty states. And the federal government has never considered denying recognition to marriage based on an ability or inability to procreate.

It's nice to listen to a judge talk about this issue rationally.

Link to the ruling (PDF Warning): http://bit.ly/annr5z

[Kanastrous]

Seems he's screwed either way. If he doesn't appeal then the GOP gets to slam him for not supporting "traditional values" (or whatever the talking point is for keeping gays down) and if he doesn't appeal and then pushes to have it abolished later, he gets the same treatment. Naturally if he does appeal, he gets slammed by the homosexuals who presumably voted for him.

It would knock another big chunk of the shine off his leadership from my non-homosexual-who-voted-for-him perspective, too.

[Aaron]

Theres that too, thanks.

[SirNitram]

This ruling screws Obama, period. Appeal? Everyone on the left decrees he's sold out, a traitor, etc. Don't repeal? Get hit by homophobic Dems, the entire GOP, the vast majority of religious leaders, and so on.

And, because the guy doesn't have it hard enough, the Department involved with any possible appeal is flooded with Burrowed arch-conservatives from Bush and Gonzo, along with their minions hiring on political terms.

Fun, huh? Anti-gay forces win no matter what.

[Anguirus]

Holy cow. If the DoJ appealed I would seriously consider sitting out the next election. I'm not a single-issue voter by any means, more of a utilitarian, but goddammit, I cannot abide anyone who claims to have an ounce of progressive credentials actively waging war on gay marriage.

[Simon_Jester]

Can Obama flat order DoJ not to appeal this?

I mean, I don't really believe he'd have the guts to do so, but could he? I'd think so.

In any case, I think Obama's got a better chance of trying to succeed by leading the party to the left* than by not leading at all,** or by leading to the right.*** So given a choice between appealing and not appealing, I think his best bet is to do well by doing good and not appeal.

*Where he's got a lot of disaffected potential supporters who would never in a million years vote Republican...
**Which makes him look like a chump, and nobody votes for chumps no matter what their political views are...
***Where he's letting the Republicans set the tone of the debate, allowing them to drag him down to their level and beat him on experience at appealing to right-wingers.

I mean for crying out loud, would you rather have the support of a million voters who have nowhere else to go but "abandon politics in disgust," or a million voters you have to constantly reassure of your center-right credentials by betraying the left wing of your own party?

[SirNitram]

Can Obama flat order DoJ not to appeal this?

No. Prosecutarial authority isn't his. He cannot decide what case to appeal, prosecute, or ditch. Though not on the exact subject, Glenn Greenwald has a piece on Obama recignizing that this power is, even as plenty of others don't care and demand political interference in legal matters. Link

However, Presidential omnipotence is apparently now the expected. So despite him not having the authority, if it is appealed, it will be blamed on him.

[SirNitram]

Adding a bit, in a new post for those who read my just before..

The Soliciter General, I beleive, makes these decisions. Acting SG is Neal Katyal, who won Hamdan and a number of others. A brief google search showed nothing noteworthy on him vis a vis gay issues.

[Kanastrous]

This ruling screws Obama, period. Appeal? Everyone on the left decrees he's sold out, a traitor, etc. Don't repeal? Get hit by homophobic Dems, the entire GOP, the vast majority of religious leaders, and so on.

And, because the guy doesn't have it hard enough, the Department involved with any possible appeal is flooded with Burrowed arch-conservatives from Bush and Gonzo, along with their minions hiring on political terms.

Fun, huh? Anti-gay forces win no matter what.

I don't think that getting blitzed by the Repub types really represents a loss for Obama since they'll chew on him no matter what he does. Even if Obama did appeal the ruling, do you really think that Rushbeckity etc wouldn't find some way to slam him, even while he served their aims?

The idea that Democrats/Liberals should worry about what their Conservative detractors have to say is odd, since the Conserv types clearly don't give a shit what Liberal/Democrats have to say.

**Which makes him look like a chump, and nobody votes for chumps no matter what their political views are...

Three words: Ronald Wilson Reagan.

[Crossroads Inc.]

The idea that Democrats/Liberals should worry about what their Conservative detractors have to say is odd, since the Conserv types clearly don't give a shit what Liberal/Democrats have to say.

And yet, we see Obama and Dems do that ALL THE TIME!

The cave when the GOP threaten to fillibuster. They cave and water down bills all in the hopes of getting One single GOP vote. They pander to the GOP constantly having NEVER received anything for their work. Currently I am steeling myself for Obamas responses, I would LIEK to think he will back this decision, but I'm a pessimist.

[Simon_Jester]

**Which makes him look like a chump, and nobody votes for chumps no matter what their political views are...

Three words: Ronald Wilson Reagan.

Hmm. Was Reagan perceived as a chump by the general public? My impression is that a large fraction of the electoral base saw him as a guy who got useful things done. Sure, he was playing the "nice but forgetful old man" card very heavily in his public image, but he still did (or appeared to do) many of the things he was elected to do, and the political opposition couldn't just walk all over him at will.

So "chump" might not be the right word. Try "weakling."

Using that term, Reagan was not a weakling, or did not seem to be- he succeeded in passing his tax cuts, in building up the military, in launching a number of military interventions, and so on. Whereas Obama does appear to be a weakling: he's sacrificed so much on the issues that he was elected to deal with. There's this feeling that even though the Republicans were totally defeated in 2008, they're still running the country somehow.

That's going to hurt him (and the Democrats in general, who have the same problem) in 2010, and if they don't change tack it'll hurt them again in 2012.

[Kanastrous]

People in Reagan's inner circle now admit that they were startled by his failure to grasp relatively simple concepts of government and policy. I suppose that one can dismiss all that as apocryphal if one chooses, but it sure seems to conform with his style of governing and a great deal of what he had to say...not to mention a number of policies for which we are only now paying the price...

...anyway, let's not derail this into a a debate on the merits of Ronald Reagan.