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 ...
Thank you. The WSJ is a tad more family friendly!
We should start out by building a list of their females to see if any of them are suitable for our anthro-harem purposes. If judges can so easily dismiss the current bio-based sexual pairing system then they can easily accept the reinstatement of the earlier system ~ and their own spawn should be brought into the practice as soon as possible.
These activist judges need to be recalled.
Whatever Romney wanted to do, the fact is this will come to one of two conclusions. Either the USSC will affirm DOMA or it will be made into an Amendment. When you have a majority of Californians voting for this, it’s not a contest.
Imagine the size of the koi pond Bill Gates would need to reduce his tax liability to zero.
No one really knows if 47% don’t pay taxes ~ since even new born babies get tagged with taxes it would be hard to slip that noose.
And who will they vote for? A guy from a polygamous background, or another guy from a polygamous background?
Another chance to take a roll call of the liberal SCOTUS justices coming up!
Romney instituted gay marriage in MA ~ that’s what he did. Starts with him.
Isn’t it obvious that if mankind truly “evolved” from random mutations that somehow exquisitely perfected us into what we are, homosexuality would long ago have been culled out of the human genome?
> USSC will affirm DOMA
Given the pass that 0bamao-care got from the USSC, there’s an even chance that it will strike down DOMA.
> it will be made into an Amendment.
Not likely. You need two-thirds of both houses of congress, plus two-thirds of both houses of two-thirds of the states to amend the constitution.
That means it's entirely probable we'll shortly develop a pill that can be given to chilluns' as they reach puberty to RESET THEM.
Currently the number of gays is probably nearer .2% than any higher number.
Those that vote Democrat in any way shape or form, are spitting on Him
Interesting take. I wonder. Did all the people in Germany who voted for Hitler go to Hell? I wonder....
“The politicians on Beacon Hill would not allow the referendum to come to a vote in the Mass Senate”
Patrick was governor by then. Just barely, but he was the gov.
The politicians on Beacon Hill violated the Massachusetts Constitution by not allowing us to vote. Never in the history of my state had so many signatures been gathered on an issue.
Section 2. Powers reserved to the states
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
Section 3. Definition of marriage
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
Also, the Lilly Ledbetter act and the Civil Rights Act are also unconstitutional.
good news...let’s get this part of the campaign before we have the minority on this issue.
What's that got to do with the package of legal rights and responsibilities conferred on pairs of individuals by government? As soon as term "marriage" was conceded to government control the argument was inevitably lost.
Yep. And it won't even be close. This would pass faster than a pig through a boa constrictor.