Skip to comments.Appeals court strikes down DOMA: Tradition doesn't justify unequal treatment (+video)
Posted on 05/31/2012 1:49:02 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
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.
Joining the decision were Chief Judge Sandra Lynch and Judge Juan Torruella.
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 statutes constitutionality....
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
Not for Romney, but certainly for many other races around the country.
The corrupt court calls the laws of God “tradition alone”. They will answer to a much higher Court one day.
In this Calvinball, normally there would be a second appeal to the circuit to hear it as a whole (”en banc”) rather than as a panel. But who’s keeping score.
Barack will look like a hypocrite to his lefties if he doesn’t embrace this. And if he does embrace it, wanna bet a dozen pancakes that Mitt waffles back to the right again on the issue.
Of course this is only borrowing from the also-traditional idea of family getting tax benefits. Why does marriage have to mean squat? What if I marry my tomcat, does he now get veterinary benefits?
Born 1939 in New York, NY
Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Nominated by George H.W. Bush on May 18, 1990, to a seat vacated by John H. Pratt. Confirmed by the Senate on August 3, 1990, and received commission on August 7, 1990. Service terminated on January 31, 1992, due to resignation.
Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Nominated by George H.W. Bush on March 20, 1992, to a seat vacated by Levin Hicks Campbell. Confirmed by the Senate on May 21, 1992, and received commission on May 26, 1992. Served as chief judge, 2001-2008.
Harvard University, B.A., 1961
Harvard Law School, LL.B., 1964
Law clerk, Hon. Henry J. Friendly, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1964-1965
Law clerk, Hon. John Harlan, Supreme Court of the United States, 1965-1966
Private practice, Washington, D.C., 1966-1987
Visiting professor, Harvard Law School, 1982-1983
Lecturer, Harvard Law School, 1983-1998
Deputy assistant attorney general, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 1987-1990
A lefty once told me a grandson should be able to marry his grandmother.
Mitt’s handlers, whatever they be, would be mighty tempted to lean on Mitt about this. This is one of the Mormon elite, after all.
So now we have gay marriage, sex-selection abortions, and John Edwards as the once-and-future Democrat messiah. Are there some other countries we could go to?
The fool has said in his heart “[there is] no God.”
This is only icing on the cake of wickedness. Who would have let on that abortion would have turned into the huge slaughter it did, yet the opposition to that is very muted.
The Sodomizing of Amerika continues unabated..............
Not sure it’s relevant, but it is interesting. One of Boudin’s former law clerks is a Director at GLAD:
May they be tried by the final judge and found wanting.
The sick and twisted judges are totally blind to the biological basis of marriage. Men living together are friends. Women living together are friends. They cannot be spouses because male/male genitalia, or female/female genitalia are NOT made for union. Male and female genitalia are made for union.
Union can only be achieved for same sex "couples" by means of perverse sex acts that risk the mental and physical safety and health of the perverts, and the population at large for communicable disease such as AIDs.
Maybe a Christian country with a low cost-of-living?
So, a judge, with one bang of a gavel, can literally create a new man whose being is defined by his sexual practices? We as a nation are well on the way to very dark and evil place.
No, see, that’s different, or something.
Was this “lefty” a woman who - perchance - had the hots for her own grandson?
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.