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 ...
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.