Appeals court strikes down DOMA: Tradition doesn't justify unequal treatment (+video)

The federal appeals court in Boston struck down the Defense of Marriage Act on Thursday, ruling that the federal statute violates the constitutional rights of gay and lesbian married couples to equal treatment under the law.

The action by a unanimous three-judge panel of the First US Circuit Court of Appeals sets the stage for a much-anticipated showdown at the US Supreme Court over same-sex marriage.

Declaring that tradition alone was not enough to justify disparate treatment of same-sex couples, the appeals court said DOMA failed to pass constitutional muster.

“Under current Supreme Court authority, Congress’ denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married in Massachusetts has not been adequately supported by any permissible federal interest,” Circuit Judge Michael Boudin wrote for the court in a 28-page decision.

The decision comes three weeks after President Obama announced his support of gay marriage. The Justice Department had initially worked to defend DOMA against the Massachusetts-based legal challenges, but last year announced it would no longer argue for the statute’s constitutionality....

“Well, that just became a major campaign issue, if it wasn’t before this.”

If the “federal” government cannot deny state recognized homosexual marriage, then what is to stop Utah from reverting back to making polygamy legal and forcing the “federal” government from recognizing it? I’m not trying to be a smart alec here. I can see how this can quickly spin out of control.

What I see as being the eventual end state, will be that the federal taxation system (and other married perks) will end because it will hamper taxation. So, they will just not give anyone “preferential” treatment. The ability to insure your spouse will disappear....I don’t know what it will do to children. There will be no distinction between married and unmarried people.

American families will suffer as a result.

so using that kind of perverted logic then all sorts of marriage can be done and the feds should recognise it.

two men and 5 women, cousins, dogs, what ever right, mariage equality after all means equality for all,

what’s that the homo’s don’t want that , they only want their kind of perverted sham marriage, what bigots.

Exactly. Society sets all kinds of rules on marriage besides gender. You have to be certain age, incest is prohibited, polygamy is against the law; etc. If marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, how is this alone unequal treatment? What about all these other societal restrictions

Good point. Though it may be best to assume that "the law" is not about equality, justice, or uniformity; but it is rather about arbitrarily enforced rules that are themselves arbitrary, this allows the state the maximum power with the minimal justification. (I posit that this model is already in effect: consider both murdergate and the Obama eligibility cases.)

Given the above, it does bring to mind the question of "pedophilia." For maximum state-power, and "uniformity of the law", they could declare that the same definition of "child" applies as that for parent's insurance: 26 years old. Then, applying this definition retrospectively -- it can't be retroactive, that'd be too close to ex post facto -- we get lots of people who must now be registered sex offenders (everyone who's married, or had sexual intercourse with, someone under 27)! That in turn requires them to be registered and allows them to be disarmed as they are obviously prohibited persons.

That is, I think, the way that things'll end up: where everything that could be considered a 'right' is instead contingent upon government approval... and government approval can be withdrawn at any time, for any reason, to include past formerly-approved actions.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.