Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

BREAKING: Second Circuit Court Finds Section 3 Of DOMA Unconstitutional ^ | 10/18/2012 | n/a

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 ...

TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events; US: New York
KEYWORDS: democrats; doma; homonaziagenda; homonazimarriage; homonazism; homosexualagenda; judicialtyranny; lawsuit; liberalfascism; liberals; moralabsolutes; progressives; ruling
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-156 last
To: xzins
You're right, xzins---I understand what you're saying. I hope for SCOITUS to overturn this damned thing; but realizing (as you said) that they seem to have given up on Constitutional integrity, we'll need another ace to win this hand: either an amendment or a Congressional smackdown excluding court interference.

"What a revoltin' situation..."

141 posted on 10/19/2012 11:16:16 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("God bless the child that's got his own." Billie Holiday / Arthur Herzog Jr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: xzins

“SCOITUS”? Oh my.....

142 posted on 10/19/2012 11:17:28 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("God bless the child that's got his own." Billie Holiday / Arthur Herzog Jr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

Good. So this means that I now have the right to carry in all 50 states and U.S territories.

143 posted on 10/19/2012 11:44:35 AM PDT by yuleeyahoo (Liberty is not collective, it is personal. All liberty is individual liberty. - Calvin Coolidge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o; wagglebee


Freud in drag is running around showing his slip.

144 posted on 10/19/2012 1:52:32 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; Mrs. Don-o
I agree with you, wagglebee, but we both know that no matter which side wins this election, there will be no urgency on the part of either administration to vigorously defend DOMA.

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.

145 posted on 10/19/2012 1:57:06 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
f*** who you want, when where and how you want, laws rules and customs nonwithstanding - has proven quite popular with the heterosexual 99 percent.

Oops, you nailed it without really trying!

146 posted on 10/19/2012 2:46:06 PM PDT by Theodore R. (Annoy the Establishment! Vote for Akin!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
"Gay rights prevails because its central theorem - f*** who you want, when where and how you want, laws rules and customs nonwithstanding - has proven quite popular with the heterosexual 99%."

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."

147 posted on 10/19/2012 3:34:56 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("God bless the child that's got his own." Billie Holiday / Arthur Herzog Jr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: yuleeyahoo

DOMA is Defense of Marriage Act. Not sure where concealed carry reciprocity fits into this.

148 posted on 10/19/2012 5:12:40 PM PDT by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: willibeaux; muawiyah; Cicero; Tamzee
Please post your clear and convincing evidence that Romney instituted gay marriage.

You asked for it, so here it is. Not that I believe you will actually read the proof, but for those not knowledgeable about what happened, in a nutshell, here is what happened:

1. According to what is plainly and simply written in the Massachusetts constitution, All matters of marriage are supposed to originate from the Legistlature via bills/laws.
2. The Supreme Court of MA while ruling on an issue gave the LEGISLATURE 180 days to iniatiate Gay Marriage.
3. The LEGISLATURE refused to act on the COMMAND from the Supreme Court.
4. Romney, without a consitutional law, decided, unconsitutionally, he had to skip the LEGISLATIVE process and implement what the Supreme Court had commanded.

It was Unconsitutional and Illegal and contrary to the lies of Romney, he was not forced by the Supreme Court of MA to do anything, because the Supreme Court of MA was acting unconsitutionally.

And here is a letter from 44 conservatives, that was hand-delivered to Mitt Romney, detailing exactly how his actions were totally unconstitutional and how wrong he was to have instituted Gay Marriage, all on his own:

Joint Letter to Governor Mitt Romney from Pro-Family Leaders
(This letter was hand-delivered to the Governor’s staff on Dec. 20, 2006.)

December 20, 2006

The Honorable W. Mitt Romney Governor, Commonwealth of Massachusetts The State House Boston, MA 02133

Dear Governor Romney:

You have a few weeks left in your term to take action on the issue of marriage. Contrary to opinions offered up by liberal commentators, liberal legal authorities, and perhaps even your own staff, you have the authority as Governor to reverse the damage that has been done to the sacred institution of marriage. The signatories below urge you to declare immediately that homosexual “marriage” licenses issued in violation of the law are illegal and to issue an order to all state and local officials to cease violating the law.

As is increasingly well known, the Massachusetts Constitution denies the Judicial Branch any role in marriage policy:
"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 judgesf opinion.

Your oath to uphold the Constitution requires treating an unconstitutional opinion as void (as President Thomas Jefferson did in Marbury v. Madison). You failed to do this. Nor did you treat it as an illegal ruling that affected only the specific plaintiffs (as Abraham Lincoln did, refusing to accept the Dred Scott ruling as law, pointing out that judges do not make law).

Instead, you asserted that the courtfs opinion was a glaw" and thus binding. Though the Legislature never revoked the actual law, you issued . with no legal authority -- the first ghomosexual marriageh licenses in American history.

The Massachusetts Constitution does not confirm either your statements or your actions:
"[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 legislaturec" (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."

As for your claims about the authority of Goodridge and its illegal 180-day instruction to the Legislature, the same court had admitted in 1992 that they cannot issue an order to the legislature or the governor:
"The courts [instructing] when and how to perform...constitutional duties" (mandamus) "is not available against the Legislature [or] against the Governor)."

"The...principles expressed in...the Massachusetts 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)
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)

We note that even the Goodridge majority said they were not suspending the marriage statute:
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

Moreover, we note that nothing in the Goodridge ruling asked or pretended to authorize the governor to violate the statute in the event that the Legislature would not repeal it.

We also note that the statute remains in the Massachusetts General Laws, and has never been stricken, suspended or nullified. The court itself has previously clarified your obligation:
"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.

We note that, despite the court's admission that the statute prohibits ghomosexual marriage,h and the Constitution's statement that only the Legislature can suspend laws, you ordered officials to perform homosexual marriages and thus violate the statute (a crime under c. 207 ˜48), and the oath of office by. Those who refused, you ordered to resign.

This emboldened other local officials, including the mayor of Boston, to boast publicly that they would break the law by "marrying" out-of-state homosexual couples . also a crime under c. 207 ˜48.

In summary, while the four judges asserted that Chapter 207 is unconstitutional, they did not suspend the marriage statute and were powerless to do so. The legislature has not changed or repealed it. Therefore:

1. The marriage statute is still in effect.
2. The statute continues to prohibit same-sex marriages.

We note that you swore no oath to execute court opinions, but rather laws and the Constitution. The same Massachusetts high court itself said in 1986: [The Executive branch] must "be faithful to the words of the statute ... as written, and an event or contingency for which no provision has been made does not justify judicial [or Executive Branch] legislation." (Amherst v. Attorney General, 398 Mass. 793)

You swore an oath to uphold the Constitution against assault from the other two branches. You swore on a Holy Bible, and said, "So help me, God." Your oath itself declares that it is violated on penalty of perjury, a felony.

Like much of America, many of us accepted as sincere your explanations of your role in this social and constitutional crisis that is fundamentally altering the moral fabric of our culture and eroding basic building block of human society. We are now forced to look at your role, as constitutional sentry and a gatekeeper of our form of government, in a different light.

We would be greatly disappointed if your principal contribution to history will be imposing homosexual marriage -- knowingly or unknowingly, willfully or negligently -- in violation of the state Constitution you swore to uphold.

. We urge you in the strongest possible way to fulfill the obligation imposed by the Constitution of Massachusetts upon the "Supreme Executive Magistrate" to uphold Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 207 the marriage statute, by declaring immediately in a formal, written executive order that the Goodridge court cannot overrule the Constitution and that homosexual marriage therefore remains against the law.

. We urge you also to issue immediately a public memorandum from the Office of the Governor declaring members of the Legislature to be engaged in a conspiracy against the Constitution, to which the oath of office attaches the penalties of perjury -- a felony.

. We urge you to immediately notify the legislators who openly conspired against the Constitution in denying the first marriage amendment petition a vote in 2002 that:

. they violated the oath of office, a constitutional felony, and

. as a citizensf 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).

Under conditions of repeated and systematic constitutional abuse, these steps by a governor are the minimum required to defend constitutional democracy and our republican form of government.

Paul Weyrich, Free Congress Foundation
*Sandy Rios, Culture Campaign
*Gary Kreep, Esq., president, United States Justice Foundation ++
*Robert Knight, a draftsman of the federal Defense of Marriage Ac
t Linda Harvey, Mission America
Rev. Ted Pike, National Prayer Network
Randy Thomasson, Campaign for Children and Families
Peter LaBarbera, Americans for Truth
Dr. Chuck Baldwin, radio host, columnist
Paul Likoudis, The Wanderer
Rev. Stephen Bennett, Stephen Bennett Ministries
Phil Lawler, Catholic World News
Rev. Scott Lively, Esq., Defend the Family
*Dr. William Greene,
Michael Heath, Christian Civic League of Maine
David E. Smith, Illinois Family Institute
Gary Glenn, American Family Association of Michigan
Diane Gramley, American Family Association of Pennsylvania
Micah Clark, American Family Association of Indiana
Kevin McCoy, West Virginia Family Foundation
Stephen Cable, Vermont Center for American Cultural Renewal
Joe Glover, Family Policy Network (National)
Terry Moffitt, Family Policy Network of North Carolina
Marnie Deaton, Family Policy Network of Virginia
Danny Eason, Family Policy Network of Texas
Matt Chancey, Family Policy Network of Alabama
Ron Shank, Family Policy Network of Tennessee
*John R. Diggs, Jr., M.D., leading expert on the medical risks of homosexuality
Sonja Dalton, Real Civil Rights Illinois
Allyson Smith, Americans for Truth/California
Brian Camenker, MassResistance
Bunny S. Galladora, Woman's Christian Temperance Union
Dr. Paul Cameron, Family Research Institute
James Hartline, The Hartline Report
Jan Markell, Olive Tree Ministries & Radio
Bill Cotter, Operation Rescue Boston
R. T. Neary, ProLife Massachusetts
Mike O'Neil, CPF/The Fatherhood Coalition, Massachusetts
John F. Russo, Marriage & Family, Massachusetts
*Stacy Harp, Active Christian Media, host, The Right View
Rena Havens, Mothers Against Pedophilia
John Haskins, Parentsf Rights Coalition
Rev. Michael Carl, Constitution Party of Massachusetts
Carl Parnell, author, From Schoolhouse to Courthouse

Affiliations are listed for identification purposes only and do not imply a formal endorsement or commitment by those organizations.

*Signed after December 20, 2006.
++Notes he has not had an opportunity to investigate punishable criminal consequences of violating the Massachusetts oath of office.

Massachusetts in-state contact: John Haskins, 781-890-6001 © 2012 Microsoft Terms Privacy About our ads Advertise Developers Help Center Feedback English
149 posted on 10/20/2012 1:02:21 PM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Tamzee; muawiyah
Romney instituted gay marriage? That’s a gross, malicious lie.

No, the gross malicious lie was the lie told by Romney that he was forced by the Supreme Court of MA to iniatiate Gay Marriage when the Legislature had not put a bill before him making it law. (See Post #149 on this thread)

All matters of marriage are to originate from the LEGISLATURE not the Supreme Court of MA BECAUSE the Consitution of MA Declares that this is the LAW of MA.

They cannot and must not originate from anywhere else, including the Supreme Court of MA.
150 posted on 10/20/2012 1:07:00 PM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

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.

151 posted on 10/20/2012 2:44:40 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

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).

So ordered.”

152 posted on 10/20/2012 2:46:37 PM PDT by Tamzee (The U.S. re-electing Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and ramming the iceberg again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

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.

153 posted on 10/20/2012 2:53:40 PM PDT by Tamzee (The U.S. re-electing Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and ramming the iceberg again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
Thanks SoCon ~ hard to believe that after the last 5 years of working on this story we still have people who refuse to accept that Romney took the law in his own hands and without the support of the legislature, forced gay marriage on the poor innocent people of Massachusetts.

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.

154 posted on 10/20/2012 3:57:12 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Tamzee
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.

Sorry, but you could not be more wrong.

The whole basis of the argument against Romney in this case is that the Legislature of MA, as required by the MA Constitution, never passed a law making it legal for Homosexuals in MA to marry.

It was "legislated" from the bench by the Supreme Court of MA.

This what made this whole process illegal and unconstitutional and made Mitt Romney the Father of Gay Marriage in America. Not because the Court made him, but because he chose to do an Unconstitutional act of which, he was amply warned before hand of the Unconsitutional nature of his choice.
155 posted on 10/22/2012 5:55:36 PM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

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.

156 posted on 12/18/2012 10:56:54 AM PST by 2harddrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-156 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
Topics · Post Article

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