Court: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional (1st US Circuit - Boston)

AP ^ | May 31, 2012 | Denise Lavoie

[C19fan]

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

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston ruled Thursday that the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, discriminates against married gay couples by denying them federal benefits.

[C19fan]

My bet from the beginning is a 5-4 SCOTUS decision striking down DOMA with Kennedy the swing vote. We had our chance for a Constitutional amendment but idiots like McCain told us just pass the law that the court(s) were 100% going to strike down.

[Lancey Howard]

Nah.. The faggots won’t win this at the Supreme Court level.

[Wally_Kalbacken]

Correct. This is the essential point - Equal Protection jurisprudence leads to gay marriage, it's just a matter of time (for the right case to get to the SCOTUS).

The only effective way to stop it is by passing an Amendment to the US Constitution which prohibits gay marriage or allows the states to do so without running afoul of the Equal Protection Clause.

All of the self congratulating you hear over things like the recent NC referendum are nice, but will have no effect when this issue gets to the SCOTUS.

Mitt Romney said that he would support a Federal Constitutional amendment which establishes marriage as between one man and one woman, but by the time he is sworn in and can then begin to work for an amendment (which will only emerge from a long, slow process - no matter which way it would be ratified), it will most likely be too late.

I do not understand how things like the various state referenda and ballot initiatives defending traditional marriage can be so successful, yet when public opinion polling is done on support for a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, the approve/disapprove is about a draw. It makes me think that people do not understand the supremacy clause and are naively thinking that taking care of business at the state constitutional level will be sufficient.

[Bob Buchholz]

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston ruled Thursday that the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, discriminates against married gay couples by denying them federal benefits.

If marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman, how can a gay couple be married to begin with? I am afraid that our judicial system no longer considers existing law when they make rulings.