Posted on 07/08/2010 2:09:02 PM PDT by Pyro7480
A U.S. judge in Boston has ruled that a federal gay marriage ban is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right a state to define marriage.
U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro on Thursday ruled in favor of gay couples' rights in two separate challenges to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.
The state had argued the law denied benefits such as Medicaid to gay married couples in Massachusetts, where same-sex unions have been legal since 2004.
Tauro agreed, and said the act forces Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens....
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Given the judge’s name, it is fitting that his decision is 100% Bull.
Gaystapo trying to move the culture wars.
Doesn’t federal law trump state law, when those laws don’t agree?
That was certainly the legal framework with civil rights era challenges to Jim Crow laws in the south.
Clearly this judge thinks that “states rights” is the most important issue. He is saying that the federal government is not allowed to define marriage.
Nixon appointee.. was a Judge in the midst of mental healthcare reform in Massachusetts..
—
Tauro, Joseph Louis
Born 1931 in Winchester, MA
Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, District of Massachusetts
Nominated by Richard M. Nixon on September 12, 1972, to a seat vacated by Francis J. W. Ford; Confirmed by the Senate on October 12, 1972, and received commission on October 17, 1972. Served as chief judge, 1992-1999.
Education:
Brown University, A.B., 1953
Cornell Law School, LL.B., 1956
Professional Career:
U.S. Army First Lieutenant, 1956-1958
Assistant U.S. attorney, District of Massachusetts, 1959-1960
Private practice, Boston and Lynn, Massachusetts, 1960-1971
Chief legal counsel to the governor of Massachusetts, 1965-1968
U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts, 1972
Race or Ethnicity: White
Gender: Male
JOSEPH L. TAURO has served as a Judge of the United States District Court since 1972. He was elevated to the position of Chief Judge in January 1992 and served in that capacity until January 1999. His public service prior to being appointed to the bench included that as United States Attorney for Massachusetts, Chief Legal Counsel to the Governor of Massachusetts, and two years in the Army as a Nike Guided Missile Officer.
A graduate of Brown University and of the Cornell Law School, Judge Tauro practiced law for a number of years with his own firm, and is admitted to the Bar Associations of Massachusetts and the District of Columbia. He was a Visiting Professor of Law at the Boston University School of Law, and is a trustee of Brown University. For many years, Judge Tauro served as a trustee of The Children’s Hospital Medical Center in Boston, as well as of the Massachusetts General Hospital. He has been a member of the Judicial Conference of the United States, and has served on the Judicial Conference Committees on Codes of Conduct, as well as The Jury System.
Judge Tauro has received honorary degrees from Brown University, Boston University, Northeastern University, Suffolk University, The University of Massachusetts, and the New England School of Law. He has also received the Cornell Law School Distinguished Alumnus Award, the Brown University Brown Bear Award, the Massachusetts Bar Association Hennessey Leadership Award, and the Boston Bar Association Citation of Judicial Excellence.
Judge Tauro’s family includes his wife, three children and six grandchildren.
Gaystapo;
Now there is a catchy title for Homo-Leninists.
Isn’t medicaid a federal program? Then the federal definition should apply.
If Kagan was Solicitor for this case, she would be forced to recuse herself from the case once it got to the Supreme Court.
This would take away one gay vote on the Supreme Court.
This *could* be a very favorable thing.
Isn’t medicaid a federal program? Then the federal definition should apply.
(sorry for the double)
The sad thing about this is that if the DOMA gets overturned this way then the faggots will get married in Mass. and then try to bring their perversion to our states and claim to be married.
Maybe we should just shoot them as they invade our borders. (Sorry, topic jumped to illegal aliens. But on second thought it would be a great deterrant in this case also)
Does this mean that the gay activists will accept the right of each state to define marriage?
If we’re saying that the federal government cannot legally define marriage, then will the liberals leave the 45 states which don’t allow homosexual marriage alone?
Next step will be a federal appeals court, and eventually the U.S. Supreme Court.
An openly homosexual judge is considering a federal challenge to California’s Proposition 8 as we speak. He will probably rule that California has no right to define marriage, so in that case, he will say that a state does not have the right to define marriage.
So which is it, do states have a right to define marriage or not? Does any level of government have the right to define marriage? Are liberal leaning judges doing to define marriage; is no other legal process to do so permitted? Do judges have all the wisdom in the world to make these decisions?
Legally speaking, they are creating a legal mess of marriage and family law. The U.S. Supreme Court will have to resolve it someday.
LMAO!!!
Massachusetts, land of "Fisting for Fifth Graders".
I suspect this judge Joseph Tauro has had his share of little boys.
There's no connection. States can do pretty much what they want with the way they deal with sodomites, but for its own purposes the federal government doesn't have to recognize individual state laws. It's not even clear to me why this scumbag judge got involved in the first place.
The Federal government only has the authority to do things within the reasonable ("necessary and proper") scope of the powers it is explicitly granted by the Constitution. The Constitution grants no power to define marriage, nor to regulate who may be married.
It may well be the case that Judge Joseph Tauro can’t quite define it but Fur Shur everybody in the country now knows what he likes eh!
Not a chance.
Forced by who? The corrupt thugs in the Obama administration? No way Jose...and don't count on it. Only conservative judges are forced to recuse themselves in an Obamanation.
As currently constructed, the Constitution, if correctly interpreted (plain language meaning) can only force the legalization of "gay marriage".
It sort of reminds me of MacArthur in the Korean war. He had pushed the North Koreans back over their border, but that was not enough, he kept going to the Chinese Border. (It is more complicated then that but this after all just an analogy).
He was surprised when several “million” screaming Chinese started heading south. Not to carry an analogy too far, there may come a time when middle America will feel threaten enough they will begin to fight back.
Not literally but figuratively. Since the courts are not inclined to defend America then perhaps a Constitutional Amendment is needed saying that a marriage is between one man and one woman (with the state setting the age of consent).
Only 38 States are required to ratify an amendment and I think there are at least 38 that would do so.
The same can be said for all the hot button issues.
I am old enough to remember a time guns could be order from Sears, the Winter Holiday was Christmas and Jesus was celebrated in the school and school pageant's, and when abortions were illegal.
A lot of the changes within our society have been brought about by the misinterpretation of the Constitution. Simple amendments that restate what the founding fathers had in mind would go a long way to correcting the movement to the left.
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.