Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Boston appeals court finds federal Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional
Wash Post ^

Posted on 05/31/2012 7:21:25 AM PDT by Perdogg

An appeals court has ruled that a law that denies a host of federal benefits to same-sex married couples is unconstitutional

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News
KEYWORDS: doma; homosexualagenda; romney; romney4bothsides; romneymarriage; romneyvsclerks
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-72 next last

1 posted on 05/31/2012 7:21:34 AM PDT by Perdogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
This is another one that will eventually have to be decided by the Supreme Court. Unfortunately with Anthony “ I Love Sodomy” Kennedy as the deciding vote, I'm not as confident of the result as I am with Obamacare.
2 posted on 05/31/2012 7:24:19 AM PDT by apillar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

This campaign season would be an EXCELLENT time to begin the process of introducing a Constitutional Amendment to protect marriage. Everybody on record, let’s go.


3 posted on 05/31/2012 7:24:19 AM PDT by ElkGroveDan (My tagline is in the shop.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Well, of course a liberal judge has found the Defense of Marriage Act to be unconstitutional. Of course a liberal judge rules that we cannot define marriage as a man and a woman. We have to be liberal. Homosexuals are an officially aggrieved liberal special interest group. Somewhere along the way, it became cool to be gay.

We have to bend over backwards to prove how liberal we are.

The fact is, that current marriage law does not discriminate against anyone, because all men and all women are treated the same under current marriage law. But that doesn’t matter to the liberal judges.

I’m waiting for the polygamy and group marriage lawsuits. If we can’t define the sex of the partners in a marriage, then it must also be discriminatory to limit marriage to only two people.


4 posted on 05/31/2012 7:28:00 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

See:

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=D9vQt6IXXaM&hd

At this point, too many judges are just attorneys with political connections and their decisions on issues of this nature should be regarded in that light.

They don’t interpret law, they attempt to make it.


5 posted on 05/31/2012 7:28:11 AM PDT by ZULU (See: http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=D9vQt6IXXaM&hd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

I hope all the liberals in Mass, etc. are going to enjoy their totalitarian leftist governments when all the producers in their respective states have seen the light and moved on. It is an interesting thing to see how vultures react when there is no other prey.


6 posted on 05/31/2012 7:28:54 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan
Well Holder isn't going to appeal the decision, what is the pathway to the Supreme Court?
7 posted on 05/31/2012 7:29:44 AM PDT by DAC21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

By this logic, how can you deny any federal benefit to anyone?

Is it any less disriminatory to deny presidential level medical care or subsidized senatorial level perks to the homeless or working poor, or to any citizen or resident for that matter?


8 posted on 05/31/2012 7:30:50 AM PDT by Iron Munro (If you want total security go to prison. The only thing lacking is freedom. D. D. Eisenhower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZULU

Exactly! These judges are legislating from the bench!

Under traditional marriage law, all men and all women are treated exactly the same under those laws. There is no violation of equal protection of the laws, by defining marriage as 1 man and 1 woman. Yet liberal judges have twisted things, because homosexuals want to marry a same sex partner.

What nobody is saying, however, is that the number 2 is also discriminatory, if it’s discriminatory to say that marriage is limited to opposite sex couples.


9 posted on 05/31/2012 7:32:20 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

I have never been able to justify the DOMA, Constitutionally... should have handled with Constitutional Amendment a long time ago before the homosexual agenda was shoved down our throats so far. Now am amendment would be highly unlikely.... IMO


10 posted on 05/31/2012 7:33:04 AM PDT by DrewsMum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

The will of the people has become the will of the bench.


11 posted on 05/31/2012 7:33:53 AM PDT by bmwcyle (I am ready to serve Jesus on Earth because the GOP failed again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan
This campaign season would be an EXCELLENT time to begin the process of introducing a Constitutional Amendment to protect marriage.

Do you seriously believe there is any point to trying to pass an amendment when winning a simple majority election is seriously in doubt?

For some highly obscure reason, when people can't win an ordinary election they seem to think the cure is an amendment, which is at least an order of magnitude more difficult.

For instance, there are 99 houses of state legislatures. 13 of them not voting to ratify the amendment would prevent it from passing.

Does anyone seriously contend there aren't 13 states where at least one house would not vote to ratify?

12 posted on 05/31/2012 7:36:01 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan

The reason DOMA passed in 1996 was because there was not enough support for a constitutional amendment. There is surely less support now, sixteen years later.

Unless and until the broad social consensus that “sexual orientation” is a real, fixed entity, like “blue eyes-brown eyes”, as the propagandists like to say, is changed homosexual “marriages” are going to be mandated within a few years.


13 posted on 05/31/2012 7:40:39 AM PDT by Jim Noble ("The Germans: At your feet, or at your throat" - Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

“We have to bend over backwards to prove how liberal we are.”

They’re bending over, all right. But they’re not bending over backwards.


14 posted on 05/31/2012 7:47:50 AM PDT by running_dog_lackey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

Well he was nominated by Nixon and looking at his record he has been quite conservative on many issues before. So it’s a little confusing why he’d go this route.


15 posted on 05/31/2012 7:53:23 AM PDT by hitchwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
The reason DOMA passed in 1996 was because there was not enough support for a constitutional amendment. There is surely less support now, sixteen years later.

There is much more support nationally now that people have seen what the courts have done to state initiatives across the country. I know the numbers, this has been a part of my life since 2000.

16 posted on 05/31/2012 7:53:37 AM PDT by ElkGroveDan (My tagline is in the shop.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

:: What nobody is saying, however, is that the number 2 is also discriminatory ::

Now that “equal protection” is the sole measure of discrimmination...

It is also “discrimminatory” to deny a brother from marrying his sister, as long as they are happy.

It is “discrimminatory” to deny a 50 year-old man to marry a 12 year-old girl as long as they are happy.

It is “discrimminatory” to deny an adult woman’s wish to marry her horse as long as they are happy.


17 posted on 05/31/2012 7:57:17 AM PDT by Cletus.D.Yokel (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alterations - The acronym explains the science.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

Because of RINOs like McCain. McCain gave some lame excuse for not supporting a constitutional amendment because he thought DOMA was adequate when any idiot could of forseen Federal courts striking it down and the case going to the SCOTUS with Kennedy will be providing the fifth vote to strike it down.


18 posted on 05/31/2012 7:58:46 AM PDT by C19fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan
There is much more support nationally now

I believe that's true, but you need 290 Representatives and 67 Senators to send an amendment to the states, and that level of support is inconceivable to me for the foreseeable future.

19 posted on 05/31/2012 8:00:04 AM PDT by Jim Noble ("The Germans: At your feet, or at your throat" - Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
"The reason DOMA passed in 1996 was because there was not enough support for a constitutional amendment. There is surely less support now, sixteen years later."

Apparently you missed the kenyan tanking in the polls right after he did his gay tap dance on TV. This continued homo fixation by the dims is going to push a lot of married women to the GOP. That could be key in places like OH.

20 posted on 05/31/2012 8:06:46 AM PDT by lodi90
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan

“This campaign season would be an EXCELLENT time to begin the process of introducing a Constitutional Amendment to protect marriage. Everybody on record, let’s go.”

Too late for that now.

The “window of opportunity” by which to do this passed about ten years ago. It won’t be back.

The leftists are using EXACTLY the same “plan of attack” for homosexual marriage as they used forty years ago for winning the Roe v. Wade decision.

That is, “convert” a few states first. Then launch court challenges from a few other states (U.S. Supreme Court will usually not agree to decide an issue like this until conflicting decisions from more than one federal court district arise). Finally, “go for the big one”.

There’s no guarantee that they’ll win in the Supreme Court, given the Court’s current makeup. Although as another poster mentioned, Justice Kennedy is an “unknown vote”.

But the left is patient — they have won this contest in a growing number of “blue” states, and with each victory, they (and not we) are “closer to the prize”. They will “wait out” the Roberts Court, if necessary, knowing that some day they may have a more sympathetic Court. And then, they will make their charge.

As you mentioned, “everybody on record”. To my knowledge, I was one of the first individuals anywhere to promote the idea of a “Marriage Amendment” to the U.S. Constitution, right here on this forum (in another life and time, so to speak). Years ago, before the “Defense of Marriage” act, this might have been possible, as even a number of democrats might have voted for it to protect themselves politically. But they wouldn’t vote for it now. It would be all-but impossible to win the two-thirds majorities in both houses of Congress to get an amendment passed and “out to the states”.

Sad to say, Republicans and conservatives passed up their chance to get a Marriage Amendment done — they shied away from it because [for many wishy-washy Republicans] it would be “too divisive” an action. So, they “compromised” with a “Defense of Marriage” Act instead.

Who would have thought that such a law could be overturned by the Supreme Court? Well, think again.

I can’t predict whether the Supreme Court will eventually overturn the DMA. Just too hard to call. What, specifically, does the United States Constitution say about “marriage”? If it says little or nothing, does that give Congress the right to regulate or codify it? Again, this is ticking time bomb, and it may blow up in unpredictable ways.

Of course, if concept of marriage was “codified” into the Constitution, this wouldn’t be the case. That’s what SHOULD have been done, but the elected representatives “of our side” backed away from doing their duty in a timely manner.

One must “strike while the iron is hot”. That includes “political irons”, as well.
The Pubbies let this iron grow cold. It won’t make it’s mark now.

Like you, I wish I could be more optimistic about this. But I’m a cold-hearted realist at the core, and that’s how I see it...


21 posted on 05/31/2012 8:14:24 AM PDT by Road Glide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

It’s not “marriage-marriage”, judge.

On the other hand, it does raise the question of how same-sex civil unions should be treated with respect to benefits.

I believe marriage is between a man and a woman—anything else gets at least an asterisk. But, I can see a case for civil unions. Then, the question becomes, should real marriage be special with respect to benefits such as pensions, health plans, and insurance?

I’m not sure about that one, as long as gays get to experience all the legal joys of separation, alimony, and post-marital support that normal people are subject to.


22 posted on 05/31/2012 8:17:56 AM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Blaming this on Romney appears to show a lack of understanding, it appears, regarding WHO made this bad decision. A federal court, out of the purview of a governor, made the call.

Governors do not appoint federal judges, do they?


23 posted on 05/31/2012 8:29:35 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Do you seriously believe there is any point to trying to pass an amendment when winning a simple majority election is seriously in doubt?

What the hell are you talking about? This issue has been winning majority elections by landslides in states nationwide. Support is growing every time a court steps in and throws out the will of the voters. I know this issue it has been part of my life since 2000.

For some highly obscure reason, when people can't win an ordinary election they seem to think the cure is an amendment,

Where did you get that? We ARE winning elections. Protection of Marriage wins EVERYWHERE that it is put to a popular votes. Where we are losing is in the activist courts. THAT is why an amendment is necessary. In fact it is the very reason the amendment process was created.

For instance, there are 99 houses of state legislatures. 13 of them not voting to ratify the amendment would prevent it from passing.

The amendment process takes years and over those years legislatures change. In fact legislatures often change on single issues which was my point in the first place. This issue is VERY popular with the public. It is time to get state representatives nationwide on record and voting on it.

24 posted on 05/31/2012 8:58:47 AM PDT by ElkGroveDan (My tagline is in the shop.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: DAC21
Well Holder isn't going to appeal the decision, what is the pathway to the Supreme Court?

The defense of DOMA has been taken up by the US House, who passed the bill, since Homobama and his Gaystapo "justice" dept have refused to do their constitutional duty. It's actually better this way, because the DOJ's previous efforts to "defend" DOMA were a laughable charade, if not downright sabotage.

This is only one of several attacks on DOMA that the House's appointed counsel are fighting - on both coasts.

25 posted on 05/31/2012 9:01:25 AM PDT by fwdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Cletus.D.Yokel

If two men or two women are OK - then you cannot make a case that 3 men or 3 women are not. Mixing more than 2 of mixed genders has reproductive responsibility issues but the aforementioned cases do not. Either we use logic or do not.


26 posted on 05/31/2012 9:02:18 AM PDT by epluribus_2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan

Good luck with that.

I will be highly surprised if such an amendment ever even comes to the floor in the House or Senate, much less receiving 2/3 of the vote, much less 3/4 of the states ratifying.

Would be nice, but it ain’t gonna happen.

Amendments only pass when they aren’t controversial. The system the Founders designed requires overwhelming public support both nationally and regionally.

It is interesting that while this issue continues to be voted down, polls indicate public movement on the issue is in the direction of approval. Over time, unless this reverses, it will start winning elections.

You can view this as us being on the wrong side of history, if you like. Personally I view it as being on the wrong side of depravity. But the end result is the same.


27 posted on 05/31/2012 9:11:53 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Blaming this on Romney appears to show a lack of understanding, it appears, regarding WHO made this bad decision. A federal court, out of the purview of a governor, made the call.

Governors do not appoint federal judges, do they?


28 posted on 05/31/2012 9:12:08 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

> We have to bend over backwards to prove how liberal we are.

Y’know, I see a basis for a usable slogan in there.

“I will not bend over backwards for your “right” to bend forwards.”


29 posted on 05/31/2012 10:31:30 AM PDT by mquinn (Obama's supporters: a deliberate drowning of consciousness by means of rhythmic noise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

MARRIAGE VOTE HIGHLIGHTS LIBERAL HYPOCRISY
http://www.donfeder.com/articles/0410marryVote.pdf

OPPOSITION TO MARRIAGE AMENDMENT
BASED ON HYPOCRISY AND CYNICISM
http://www.donfeder.com/articles/0606MPAvote.pdf


30 posted on 05/31/2012 10:51:14 AM PDT by massmike (The choice is clear in November: Romney or Caligula!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

Well said.


31 posted on 05/31/2012 11:02:43 AM PDT by Obadiah (2008: Hope & Change -- 2012: Fear & Destruction)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ZULU

And the liberals will point this out when the Supreme Court invalidates obamacare


32 posted on 05/31/2012 11:09:52 AM PDT by IslandLad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

And you know that when the Supreme Court strikes down obamacare, the liberals will be yelling about legislating from the bench


33 posted on 05/31/2012 11:10:10 AM PDT by IslandLad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: IslandLad

you could say this is a matter opf perspective, but tis not.

Conservative judges adhere to original intent while liberal judges follow the theory of a “living” Constitution - or the law means what they say it means at the moment.

No?


34 posted on 05/31/2012 11:14:25 AM PDT by ZULU (See: http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=D9vQt6IXXaM&hd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: DrewsMum

We’ll get flamed for it, but I have to agree with you. It’s not something for the federal government to get involved in.

I understand why everybody on here wants to protect it, and why they want it to be an amendment, but it’s not in the Constitution, and the federal government has no right to legislate on marriage. Unless you want to grant them that power in an amendment specifically tailored to marriage.

Be careful what you wish for...


35 posted on 05/31/2012 11:15:02 AM PDT by wastedyears ("God? I didn't know he was signed onto the system.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Road Glide; ElkGroveDan
Years ago, before the “Defense of Marriage” act, this might have been possible, as even a number of democrats might have voted for it to protect themselves politically. But they wouldn’t vote for it now. .... Sad to say, Republicans and conservatives passed up their chance to get a Marriage Amendment done ... Who would have thought that such a law could be overturned by the Supreme Court? Well, think again.

Garbage. As is, the Supreme Court wanders all over the original clear intent of the Bill of Rights, so your Marriage Amendment wouldn't last any longer in the real world than DOMA will. The Constitution is on fire, it is NOT a fire extinguisher.

36 posted on 05/31/2012 11:23:13 AM PDT by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

If a politician thinks a marriage amendment will keep them in power they will pass it yesterday.

DC lives in a vacume.

This is why the effetes need to be primaried and conservatives have to not be suckered by third party losers.


37 posted on 05/31/2012 11:27:53 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

also when it came close to passing they put a poison pill flag burning amendment in there too. It was a “we tried” BS manuver by the RINOs.


38 posted on 05/31/2012 11:29:43 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
If marriage is REALLY unconstitutional then the lib courts should stop them and annul them not redefine them.
39 posted on 05/31/2012 11:52:06 AM PDT by sickoflibs (Romney is a liberal. Just watch him closely try to screw us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Amendments only pass when they aren’t controversial. The system the Founders designed requires overwhelming public support both nationally and regionally.

this is why the 10th Amendment and federalism works. Forcing 49% of the nation to accept something they don't want in their state is a recipe for resentment and divisiveness. something leftards love to sow:discord.

why even have state legislatures when we have an all-knowing Federal Goobermint?

40 posted on 05/31/2012 12:03:24 PM PDT by TurboZamboni (Looting the future to bribe the present)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni

I quite agree. Trying to make TX and MA live by the same rules is just stupid.


41 posted on 05/31/2012 12:05:22 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

“We have to bend over backwards to prove how liberal we are.”

Not backward. Forward.


42 posted on 05/31/2012 12:12:23 PM PDT by Eleutheria5 (End the occupation. Annex today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Cletus.D.Yokel
Correct on other points but not here :

It is “discrimminatory” to deny a 50 year-old man to marry a 12 year-old girl as long as they are happy.

Age of consent issues.
43 posted on 05/31/2012 1:33:28 PM PDT by kroll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Even more stunning is the rationale: They couldn’t find even a word in the Constitution to justify their decision. It’s based solely on other, recent judges’ decisions. (See Duncan’s comments and quote at National Review, “First Circuit vs. DOMA.”)


44 posted on 05/31/2012 3:24:09 PM PDT by Missouri gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lakeshark; Darksheare; derllak

Great, inter-species marriages coming next! *partying snake*


45 posted on 05/31/2012 3:47:26 PM PDT by Borax Queen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Borax Queen; Darksheare

Inter-species is da best!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3svW8PM_jc


46 posted on 05/31/2012 4:06:26 PM PDT by Lakeshark (NbIttoalbl,cRwIdtaa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Borax Queen; Darksheare
Methinks Darks may be into non-species marriage.......

:-)

"Gimme that, gimme that, gimme that snake!"

47 posted on 05/31/2012 4:10:13 PM PDT by Lakeshark (NbIttoalbl,cRwIdtaa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Lakeshark; Borax Queen

It vas operation Moose und Squirrel!


48 posted on 05/31/2012 4:27:38 PM PDT by Darksheare (You will never defeat Bok Choy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Lakeshark; Darksheare

LOLOL and YEAH, baby!


49 posted on 05/31/2012 4:52:29 PM PDT by Borax Queen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Borax Queen; Darksheare
That's muh snake......now where's that sequin suit?

:-)

50 posted on 05/31/2012 8:15:28 PM PDT by Lakeshark (NbIttoalbl,cRwIdtaa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-72 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson