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 ...
"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).
Thanks for providing all the details again. I’ve seen them before, but didn’t know where to look for them.
But the basic case is, regretably, perfectly clear. The Mass. court ordered the Legislature to pass a gay marriage act. The legislature declined to do the court’s bidding—even though this is ultra-liberal Massachusetts.
But Romney went ahead and unlawfully shoved gay marriage through, using his power as governor and threatening to fire anyone who disobeyed his illegal command.
Thus Massachusetts was the FIRST STATE to “legalize” gay marriage. And it was ENTIRELY Romney’s doing.
It certainly doesn’t make me happy that this is the guy who is the only alternative to Obama the Muslim Communist. But there it is. Does anyone really imagine for a second that if elected, Romney will reverse the gays in the military policy? Once he’s in the White House, how can he be forced to do it?
Not a happy situation, because as we know, Obama is gay and only too happy to see this kind of stuff passed.
OK, I read every word. It was a waste of time because the basic pillar of what you wrote is incorrect.
The court did not “COMMAND” that the legislature initiate gay marriage legislation within 180 days and then Romney just went ahead with it even though a law hadn’t been passed by them.
What the Supreme Court did was uphold the current marriage law, but strike down as unconstitutional the provision that licenses would be denied to same sex couples. Then they instituted a 180 STAY to PERMIT the legislature to act. The legislature did NOT and the STAY ENDED, leaving Romney stuck to uphold the law and no longer refuse licenses based on same sex applicants. Romney began working on a statewide Defense of Marriage ballot initiative to allow the citizens of the state to overturn the Supreme Court decision.
Here is the conclusion of the actual Supreme Court decision.... Goodridge v. Department of Public Health
“In their complaint the plaintiffs request only a declaration that their exclusion and the exclusion of other qualified same-sex couples from access to civil marriage violates Massachusetts law. We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution. We vacate the summary judgment for the department. We remand this case to the Superior Court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion.
Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion. See, e.g., Michaud v. Sheriff of Essex County, 390 Mass. 523, 535-536 (1983).
Please see post 152 and read the Supreme Court’s wording.
The court did not ORDER the legislature to pass gay marriage legislation within 180 days....
The court ORDERED that the current law be upheld but licenses not be denied same sex couples and then stayed the decision for 180 days to permit the legislature to act. The legislature didn’t and the stay lifted leaving the decision in place.
We have the same problem with Obamugabe who decided the first thing to do was persecute the Catholic church ~ all the other Democrat presidents found them relatively easy to use but this guy is a total dunderhead.
True, but even your example of a ban on interracial marriage does not show any DISCRIMATION: All races are treated exactly the same. No one has a special preference.
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.