Skip to comments.BREAKING: Second Circuit Court Finds Section 3 Of DOMA Unconstitutional
Posted on 10/18/2012 9:09:23 AM PDT by massmike
We have some breaking news out of New York: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has ruled on Windsor v. the United States, a case challenging Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, and found a federal definition of marriage as one man and one woman violates the U.S. Constitution.
"[W]e conclude that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act violates equal protection and is therefore unconstitutional," they wrote.
Our legal eagle Ari Ezra Waldman will have a full analysis soon.
(Excerpt) Read more at towleroad.com ...
I think your logic is sound, however, they argue that it ignores homosexuality. Since homosexuals exist, and since Scotus said that homosexuality can’t be criminalized in the Texas case, then the 2nd circuit logic naturally follows.
We are not denying the existence of homosexuality, we are saying it is unwelcome behavior. We used to be able to classify it as illegal behavior until Scotus.
they have the same rights as us and everytime I hear someone state how they are being treated unfairly I ask what is our rights which they do not have and never once can they answer.
We can’t marry the same sex nor can they, we have age laws just like them.
Homosexuals define themselves and the only ay to define them is by their sex and how they have oit and because of that they think they should be given special rights as if they were a normal family, a normal couple, normal parents etc
Our side should be fighting about this much more and the lieks of Hannit are nothing but cowards when it comes to the social issues
The dumb-ass court is WRONG. All persons are treated the SAME under that law (DOMA). Every person has the right to be single, OR to marry any person of the opposite sex he or she can talk into it. There is no simply no discrimination. Period. Obviously, the judges could never program a computer.
Yet it is a problem ~ and it coughs social problems that you and I get to pay for in our tax bills.
Tutti Fruiti ~ now where do you suppose that came from
The problem with this argument is that the same argument could have been made about laws prohibiting miscegination - e.g., "Every person has the right to be single, OR to mary any person of the
opposite sex same race he or she can talk into it. There is simply no discrimination."
Obviously, the two situations are not at all similar -- the state has a much, much stronger interest in promoting traditional marriage than it did in prohibiting interracial marriage -- but making the "everyone has the same rights" argument leaves you susceptible to the interracial marriage comparison (which libs LOVE - makes them feel like supporting same sex marriage is a "civil rights issue").
I'm afraid so. It was NOT the legislature. The corrupt Mass. Supreme Court ordered the legislature to legitimate gay marriage. They did not. But Romney stepped in and did it himself as governor, single-handed. He ordered all the clerks in the state to preside over and approve gay marriages, on pain of being fired if they refused.
Romney was the VERY FIRST politician in the country to institute gay marriage as state law. And he did it on his own. He was NOT forced to, although he pretended that he was.
I keep hoping that there is a way out of this mess, but Romney is a very questionable solution, I'm afraid. I'm hoping to see Obama lose the election, but I'm not at all sure that Romney can be counted on to undo anything that Obama did.
Newt wanted to get his hands on them!
Please stop trying to inject logic and reason into what otherwise was an effective slander.
As opposed to most blackrobes, our Framing generation knew the difference between liberty and license.
Until the blackrobes and bureaucrats are neutered, our republic will continue to slide into arbitrary government and tyranny.
She knows more about the constitution than most adults and she;s 11.
Sadly we do not have enough conservatives as judges, teachers and lawyers .
Karl Marx once said that their agenda will not carry by force or be accepted and that they need to get into positions of power and influence and boy have they done that.
I heard on Levin this was a 2-1 judge decision, to think that these two judges have that much power that they can redefine marriage.
We should have done a constitutional amendment years ago but we had too many on our side saying this was no big deal about civil unions, hell we still have idiots on our side saying this is not a big deal and we certainly have cowards on this issue like Hannity who refuse to mention this due to them having homosexual pals , work with them or don;t want to upset their liberal pals like Beckel or be called a name
I never said they would go to hell, I only said that I think The Lord is keeping track and that they spit on Him/Jesus when they vote as they do.
You see a vote for a Democrat in my mind, says that they support infanticide, the removal of Christ/God from public square/classroom etc etc,
Means they support homosexuality being taught to children as normal.
A Christian for starters should not even be capable of wanting the Name of Jesus removed from anywhere. He already tells us in His Word, that he formed us each in the womb, knows how many hairs on our heads, and also states that our bodies are not are own, but his. So women that argue their right to control their own bodies,need to take a look in the New Testament
Not for me to say who will burn in hell. Have they asked Jesus into their life, have they thanked Him for dying on Cross etc?
To support abortion or want the Name of Jesus removed from public, suggests to me, that they never came to the place of accepting Christ..
The Lord knows all of that, I just said they spit on Him when they vote Democrat..My opinion :)
Romney instituted gay marriage? That’s a gross, malicious lie.
I think you are just jealous. You probably wish YOU had an entire state’s gay lobby hold a BIGOT rally against you like they did against Romney when he was trying to pass a Defense of Marriage ballot referendum.
“RALLY AGAINST ROMNEY “BIGOT!”
“ROMNEY FIGHTS FOR MARRIAGE VOTE”
Uploaded by BobSacamaneau on Nov 20, 2006
Governor Mitt Romney addresses a rally at the Massachusetts State House calling on the legislature to vote on a marriage amendment. The ballot initiative would allow the state’s citizens to vote on the definition of marriage. Currently the legislature is refusing to allow their constituents to vote on the matter, violating the Massachusetts Constitution.
You mean like how horrible genetic diseases were culled out of the genome? You know like the aggressive forms of muscular dystrophy, where the afflicted rarely survive to puberty? I'm sure your heart is in the right place, and politically you mean well, but your grasp of science is terrible.
Seems to me 'He did that'
That's why they say it violates "equal protection," and that's a fundamental misunderstanding right there. DOMA doesn't "target" gays and lesbians any more than it targets any other class of persons ineligible for marriage with each other: fathers and daughters, sisters-in-law, nine-year-olds, or triplets.
Its fundamental purpose is not to discriminate "against" gays, but to reaffirm the constant historic rational basis of marriage ---specifying a union which is potentially reproductive, as contrasted to potentially tennis-playing, foot-massaging, mutual-masturbating or condo-sharing.
"Not that there's anything wrong with that!" >:o/
The public "rational basis" for marriage is that it provides recognition and stability for the one-and-only kind of union which can inherently generate offspring.
Marriage wasn't invented by the state. It is not state property. It always has been, and still is, the only institution which unites children to their natural father and mother. The state can recognize it, can protect it, but cannot steal its name, delete its nature, and then launch something different in its stead.
I agree 1000 percent with every single thing you’ve written Mrs.D, but I do NOT believe that Scotus will overturn this. I believe that after the Texas ruling that essentially acknowledged homosexuality as acceptable, that the judges will simply rule that forbidding marriage is preventing homosexuals from a particular activity because others are permitted that activity.
It will take either a constitutional amendment or a new DOMA that includes the congressional power to prevent judicial review.
Please do not hear me disagreeing with your excellent essay detailing the only legitimate reason for advantaging marriage between a one man and one woman: potential procreativity and the rearing of children in the most positive setting which is the loving homeof their own biological parents.
What you are hearing me saying is that I believe Anthony Kennedy and John Roberts will not side with DOMA.
Which is total nonsense.
There is no law now, nor has there ever been a law, that prohibits homosexuals from getting married. They have EXACTLY the same rights to marriage as anyone else.
What the left cannot accept is that no society in the history of the world has EVER defined marriage as anything other than between ONE man and a woman. Even in cultures that permit polygamy, all marriages have always had exactly one man, never more and never less.
Same-sex marriage is nothing more than Satan's latest attempt to destroy the institution of marriage altogether. First came the Pill and the notion that sex for enjoyment only without the possibility of reproduction was acceptable. Then came no fault divorce which gave the impression that marriage was nothing more than a temporary arrangement. Then there was the "free love" movement that further eroded marriage. And now we see same-sex marriage.
Satan and his willing agents on the left don't give a damn if homosexuals can marry each other or not, their only objective is to destroy the institution of marriage for the rest of us who do still believe in Biblical teaching about marriage.
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.