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 ...
homosexuals have every right as us, there is not one right they do not have which we have.
They can marry the opposite sex just as we can, we can;t marry the same sex just as they can;t, we can;t marry more than one person at once just as they can;t.
What frigging dopey lawyer was on our side for this and who were the judges?
Liberalism is a mental disease, it really is.
This is all based on sex, that’s it, how they get off.
Some say on our sdie that the homosexuals agenda is nothing, I’ve seen libertarians on here say that they have no problem with a grown man marrying his little daughter, we truely live in a sick country today and our side like Hannity won;t even mention social issues and yet THE LEFT ALWAYS FIGHTS FOR THEIR SOCIAL ISSUES,.
The elite intellectual crowd tends to conveniently forget that not all laws are equal and or even legitimate whether they be passed by a legislative body or pulled out of thin air by a judge.
There is common law -laws not centrally planned; often with no rational basis -laws historically proven successful that evolved in a society promoting the common good -laws coming out and adopted having emanated from the free marketplace of ideas.
The elite intellectual crowd also tends to discount if not completely ignore the laws that are by default premised upon the inalienable authority that is above government -God the Creator. No rational basis is the battle cry of the leftist elites who plank by plank attempt to dismantle proven tradition and institution for their supposed rationally derived and centrally planned utopia.
So exactly what is marriage?
At the time civil registration was created it was considered a great advance in civil liberties.
It's gotten better, but we still have a lot of fascist stuff they instituted that stands in the way of progress.
I think he did the prayer and counseling bit on it and gave up.
Surely you jest. Everyone knows Roberts upheld Obamacare because the law was passed by representatives elected by the people. "It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices." (In other words, the Constitution doesn't matter; elections do.) Therefore, DOMA will be upheld. /sarc
You sound like a guest at the party in Alice & Wonderland, over the non-issue.
Also, why do you continually misrepresent Mitt Romney's actions in relation to "same-sex" marriage?" If he went along with certain things in Leftist Massachusetts, that does not mean that he does not mean what he says in the present race. Obama is the candidate who has endorsed the oxymoron--for t hat is what the very concept of "same-sex marriage" is.
So what are you talking about?
I despise the direction our country is heading.
BTW, polygamy is usually adopted in societies where fertile women are in short supply. The rich guys get the women, and the poor guys get to share the leftovers.
Whether this court is correct or not doesn’t really matter. If America and Americans are relying on the DOMA to preserve marriage, we’re utter fools.
The Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God won’t accept law as a substitute for morality. (That’s on practically every page of the Bible.) If we think passing a law relieves us of responsibility, this court has done us a favor by disabusing us of that notion.
Little Richard was a homo?
DOMA doesn't violate the equal protection clause, because DOMA is applied equally to all Americans. (It's not as though some classes of people are allowed to engage in homosexual unions, and other's are not.) The law says that the US government recognizes that all Americans can marry one person of the opposite sex. This means that homosexuals have the same rights as all other Americans since all Americans can marry someone of the opposite sex. Same sex couples just choose not to exercise that right. Since the law is applied equally to all Americans it does not violate equal protection.
Striking down DOMA on the grounds of equal protection is absolutely absurd. Following this court's crazy logic, incestuous and polygamous marriage will have to be upheld as well because not permitting them also would violate equal protection as described by this court.
You have a good point, but if we count bi-sexuals or those who recreational fudge packers and rug munchers I would bet the total is more like 20%.
Actually Polygamy is a problem in this country but it is underground so to speak., muslims and other religions accept it and do it.
In Canada right now there is a suit about this and I read on here though I have nio time to fund t that a suit has been filed in a state , not sure which one it is but it was out west.
What this decision has done and it;s a stupid activist decision is that marriage is anything.
Thye have the same rights as us, and what defines homosexuals is that they like sex and get off sexually with the same sex,.
So based on that they think special laws should be applied and I;m sure the foudning fathers would not have done special laws based on how one has their sex and if they thought this sick act would have been a problem as it is now then they would have dealt with it in the constitution
We don’t have any lawyers, dopey or otherwise, on our side anymore — the justice department is actually AGAINST the laws of our country on this issue, advocating for them to be overturned.
We don’t have any lawyers, dopey or otherwise, on our side anymore — the justice department is actually AGAINST the laws of our country on this issue, advocating for them to be overturned.
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.
"What a revoltin' situation..."
“SCOITUS”? Oh my.....
Good. So this means that I now have the right to carry in all 50 states and U.S territories.
Freud in drag is running around showing his slip.
IIRC, Anthony Kennedy leans libertarian, and with 4 liberals that means he will not deny the 2nd Circuit's ruling.
John Roberts is absolutely unpredictable. You'd think, after his urgent need to support the legislative branch regarding obamacare, that he'd do the same with doma and congress. But we know better. Roberts did what he did because he caved, not because of some doctrine of supporting duly passed legislation.
Oops, you nailed it without really trying!
So true. Marriage historically, and truthfully means, one-man-one-woman, exclusively, for life, in a sacred fertile union. When the heteros went for premarital test-driving as the new norm, divorce-remarriage (that's not "one man one woman," it's serial polygamy), amorous excursions ezxcused, secular-civil and contracepted, we (heteros) knocked 85-90% of the "stuffing" out of the "definition of marriage" already.
The gays are just adopting a denatured self-serving set-up which we heteros already counterfeited, re-normed, and fraudulently labeled "marriage."
DOMA is Defense of Marriage Act. Not sure where concealed carry reciprocity fits into this.
"All causes of marriage...shall be heard and determined by the governor and council, until the legislature shall, by law, make other provision." (PART THE SECOND, Ch. III, Article V.)In hearing the Goodridge case and issuing an opinion, four of the seven judges violated the Supreme Law of Massachusetts. Massachusetts courts have admitted, on other occasions, that neither they nor legislators, nor the governor are authorized to violate the Constitution:
[The words of the Constitution] are mandatory and not simply directory. They are highly important. There must be compliance with them.h (Town of Mount Washington v. Cook 288 Mass. 67)Nevertheless, after these judges issued an illegal opinion, you told the citizens of Massachusetts and all of America that you had no choice but to "execute the law." Oddly, you were not referring to a law, but to the judgesf opinion.
"[T]he people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent." (PART THE FIRST, Article X.)The Constitution also disproves your assertion to the nation that the marriage statute (M.G.L. Chapter 207) was somehow suspended or nullified by the four judges:
"The power of suspending the laws, or the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature, or by authority derived from it, to be exercised in such particular cases only as the legislature shall expressly provide for." (PART THE FIRST, Article XX.)In light of both your actions and your explanations, it comes as a great surprise to many of us to learn that, under the Massachusetts Constitution, judges cannot suspend or alter statutes. This principle is clearly fundamental to Massachusetts' system of government and is restated in multiple ways.
"The judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men." (PART THE FIRST, Article XXX.)We note that the Massachusetts Constitution so completely protects citizens from the rule of judges that even laws passed in the Colonial period before the Constitution itself was ratified cannot be suspended by judges:
"All the laws which have heretofore been adopted, used and approved c shall still remain and be in full force, until altered or repealed by the legislaturec" (PART THE SECOND, Article VI.)We note, Governor, that in all of your justifications to the nation, there was no mention of these parts of the Constitution which you swore to defend. Why? Even this same court is forced to admit:
"The Constitution as framed is the only guide. To change its terms is within the power of the people alone." (Opinion of the Justices, 220 Mass. 613, 618)We note Massachusetts Chief Justice Hutchison's words in 1767: "laws should be established, else Judges and Juries must go according to their Reason, that is, their Will" and "[T]he Judge should never be the Legislator: Because, then the Will of the Judge would be the Law: and this tends to a State of Slavery.' " As Judge Swift put it in 1795, courts "ought never to be allowed to depart from the well known boundaries of express law, into the wide fields of discretion."
"The courts [instructing] when and how to perform...constitutional duties" (mandamus) "is not available against the Legislature [or] against the Governor)."We also note this ruling in 1969: "an unconstitutional overreaching by the judiciary is an act that is gnot only not warranted but, indeed, [is] precluded.h (Commonwealth v. Leis)
"The...principles expressed in...the Massachusetts Constitution...call for the judiciary to refrain from intruding into the power and function of another branch of government." (LIMITS v. President of the Senate, 414 Mass. 31, 31 n.3, 35 (1992)
gHere, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief."In fact, they admitted that under the statute, Chapter 207 of the Massachusetts General Laws, homosexual marriage is illegal: gWe conclude, as did the judge, that M.G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry.h
"But the statute, so long as it stands, imposes upon both branches [of the Legislature] uniformity of procedure so far as concerns this particular matter. One branch cannot ignore it without a repeal of the statute. A repeal can be accomplished only by affirmative vote of both branches and approval by the governor." (Dinan v. Swig, 223 Mass. 516, 519 (1916)Nevertheless, with no legislation authorizing you to do so, you ordered the Department of Public Health to change the words on marriage licenses from "husband" and "wife," to "Partner A" and "Partner B." Stunningly, you later admitted that without enabling legislation you cannot change birth certificates in a similar way.
. they violated the oath of office, a constitutional felony, and
. as a citizensf constitutional petition, that initiative remains pending until brought to one of the five final actions the Constitution requires and
. therefore their crime against the Constitution is perpetual and without statute of limitations
. unless they vote, you will call them into session on that original marriage petition and
. will order the state police to arrest them and bring them to the chambers to vote (as the Governor of Texas ordered in May 2003 when Texas legislators refused to convene a quorum).
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.