Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

BREAKING: Second Circuit Court Finds Section 3 Of DOMA Unconstitutional
towleroad.com/ ^ | 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 towleroad.com ...


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 1-5051-100101-150151-156 next last
To: LS

> 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.


51 posted on 10/18/2012 9:45:02 AM PDT by Westbrook (Children do not divide your love, they multiply it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Elpasser
Homosexuality depends entirely on epigenetics ~ else there'd be a 'gay gene' which there isn't.

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.

52 posted on 10/18/2012 9:47:08 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Friendofgeorge

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....


53 posted on 10/18/2012 9:48:10 AM PDT by napscoordinator (GOP Candidate 2020 - "Bloomberg 2020 - We vote for whatever crap the GOP puts in front of us.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Westbrook

“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.


54 posted on 10/18/2012 9:49:16 AM PDT by warsaw44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

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.


55 posted on 10/18/2012 9:49:39 AM PDT by campaignPete R-CT (campaigning for local conservatives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massmike
If the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause applies to an individual's 'right' to marry irregardless of sex, then the IRS tax code should apply to the individual's tax rate irregardless of income.

Also, the Lilly Ledbetter act and the Civil Rights Act are also unconstitutional.

56 posted on 10/18/2012 9:50:16 AM PDT by HapaxLegamenon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
This was bound to happen once Gov’t became part of marriage. They will usurp churches and other religious organizations so that they ‘recognize’ these gays instead of following their own religion.
57 posted on 10/18/2012 9:50:58 AM PDT by Theoria (Romney is a Pyrrhic victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: massmike

good news...let’s get this part of the campaign before we have the minority on this issue.


58 posted on 10/18/2012 9:51:02 AM PDT by for-q-clinton (If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
So 9 million years of evolution is not good enough for the Second Circuit?

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.

59 posted on 10/18/2012 9:51:46 AM PDT by newzjunkey (Osama's dead... and so is our ambassador - Coulter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Westbrook
"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."

Yep. And it won't even be close. This would pass faster than a pig through a boa constrictor.

60 posted on 10/18/2012 9:52:41 AM PDT by LS ("Castles Made of Sand, Fall in the Sea . . . Eventually (Hendrix))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Batman11

It’s decades old and silly. God made all.


61 posted on 10/18/2012 9:53:32 AM PDT by newzjunkey (Osama's dead... and so is our ambassador - Coulter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: massmike

What they really meant was it violates their extrapolation of equal protection into special protection for special categories.

Court: More Equal


62 posted on 10/18/2012 9:53:55 AM PDT by unlearner (You will never come to know that which you do not know until you first know that you do not know it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: warsaw44

Ah. Thanks for the correction.

The politicians should have been arrested for malfeasance.

But with Devil Patrick in the corner office, they must’ve felt safe.

Foster Furcolo would’ve sent the State Troopers over there to handcuff them. I remember him threatening to keep the legislation in session “until Hell freezes over”(his words in a TV broadcast to the citizens of Massachusetts) to get the no-fault auto insurance passed.


63 posted on 10/18/2012 9:55:02 AM PDT by Westbrook (Children do not divide your love, they multiply it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: for-q-clinton

Obama really thinks rectal matrimony is a winning issue.


64 posted on 10/18/2012 9:56:29 AM PDT by Never on my watch (I can see November from the Chick-Fil-A drive through lane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

Comment #65 Removed by Moderator

To: muawiyah
Romney instituted gay marriage in MA ~ that’s what he did. Starts with him.

That's a lie and you probably know better.

Romney ordered compliance with the state supreme court ruling on the last date allowable by the court then set about fighting to give the People a voice on the matter until the end of his term. He even sued the legislature do try to make that happen. He was not successful.

66 posted on 10/18/2012 9:59:35 AM PDT by newzjunkey (Osama's dead... and so is our ambassador - Coulter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: knak

The American people are for DOMA. Bring it up in the debate by all means, Mitt. Make Obama defend his position.


67 posted on 10/18/2012 10:00:30 AM PDT by Phillyred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Comment #68 Removed by Moderator

To: rarestia

69 posted on 10/18/2012 10:00:40 AM PDT by Tonytitan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: massmike

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.


70 posted on 10/18/2012 10:01:09 AM PDT by 2harddrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theoria

With the state involved, the definition it uses to recognize the institution is simply whatever judges, pols or the majority thinks it is at any one time. And that’s it, and that’s all it will ever be. Combine that with the fact many have been conditioned to think marriage comes from and is defined by the state and you have what we have today. It was always a danger. Pope Leo XIII warned about it 130 years ago.

Freegards


71 posted on 10/18/2012 10:02:18 AM PDT by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Westbrook

There were thousands and thousands of names tossed off the signature list and still there was a record set for the amounts of people who wanted to vote on this.

The space for a citizens signature on the sheets provided were so tiny you had to be careful when signing. Any names just outside the box was tossed. The homosexuals had an army of lawyers go over every single name gathered - every one.

This state was fired up and ready to go on the issue. Even liberals I knew were going to vote against this BS. The vast majority of the clowns on Beacon Hill should have been arrested.

My state once reared folks such as Revere, Adams and Warren. Now we’ve got the likes of Patrick, Kennedy and Kerry. How the hell does that happen?


72 posted on 10/18/2012 10:03:21 AM PDT by warsaw44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: massmike
"[W]e conclude that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act violates equal protection and is therefore unconstitutional,"

Again, the NRA and GOA should take this conclusion and sue for "equal protection" to conceal carry nation-wide, and invalidate any state-level gun laws as unconstitutional.

73 posted on 10/18/2012 10:04:27 AM PDT by DTogo (High time to bring back the Sons of Liberty !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massmike

Marriage has always, through human history, been defined as a union of a man and a woman. How would this violate the Constitution?


74 posted on 10/18/2012 10:06:37 AM PDT by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Defiant

Amazing that so many people wasted so much time pushing the “Equal Rights Amendment”, since apparently it was already IN the constitution and we all just didn’t know it.

Of course, the opinion, without even reading it, is stupid. Every man and every woman have the exact same rights — the right to marry a person of the opposite gender. A gay man has the same right as a straight man, or a transgender man, or a cross-dressing-man. They can all marry females, and those females can have any sexual orientation or none at all.

The idea that “equal protection” means that one person should different rights is absurd, and smacks of “1984” newspeak.

However, the first practical application of this should be to require car insurance companies to stop giving discounts to female drivers.


75 posted on 10/18/2012 10:08:18 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey

God made all, but all can’t marry all. Think of the ramifications if it were so.


76 posted on 10/18/2012 10:08:32 AM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Polygamy? That's far, far more natural and Scriptural, than the gay thing, i.e. a male attempting to mate with another male's anus.

Heck, remember, the Jews have a polygamous background, and the Christians too, inasmuch as the Old Testament is a part of our Holy Writ. Though we (Jews and Christians) haven't practiced that for millennia.

If you're alluding to Mormon vs Muslim, the Mormons have officially discountenanced polygamy for several generations.

As far as I know, only the Muslims have formal, approved polygamy these days. Them and some of the animists, I reckon.

77 posted on 10/18/2012 10:11:14 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Quodlibet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Batman11
“God created Adam & Eve, not Adam and Steve.”

Bahahaha! Post of the Day! I am so stealing that! ...and a new tagline is born!M

Please tell me that this is not the first time you've heard that one.

78 posted on 10/18/2012 10:14:03 AM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: massmike
It does NOT violate equal protection. Homosexuals can marry the opposite sex just like everyone else. If the judge does not like this then why can't a sister marry her brother? Or why doesn't the equal protection clause violate the rights of bigamists? What if a nine year old girl wants to marry a 40 year old man? It never ends.
79 posted on 10/18/2012 10:18:41 AM PDT by Flavious_Maximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: warsaw44

...and all these years later,gay “marriage” STILL is NOT legal in Massachusetts!
http://www.massresistance.net/ (March,2010)

MARCH 16, 2010
For years now — since 2005 — the homosexual lobby has filed and refiled its bill to legalize “gay marriage” in Massachusetts. They know that the law as it now stands refers to “man/woman”, “husband/wife” relationships as marriage. Today, the Judiciary Committee once again sent the bill to “study” — meaning, they killed it. But the very existence of this bill over the years confirms that we are correct that “gay marriage” has never been made legal in Massachusetts.

SHELVED TODAY:
House Bill 1708
AN ACT TO PROTECT MASSACHUSETTS FAMILIES THROUGH EQUAL ACCESS TO CIVIL
MARRIAGE
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority
of the same, as follows:
SECTION 1. Chapter 207 is hereby amended by adding the
following new section:—
Section 37A. Any person who otherwise meets the eligibility requirements of this chapter may
marry any other eligible person regardless of gender.

Why would the Judiciary Committee continue to bury this bill? We believe they don’t want to draw attention to the fact that all the “gay marriages” since 2004 are fraudulent.


80 posted on 10/18/2012 10:20:49 AM PDT by massmike (The choice is clear in November: Romney or Caligula!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
I'm afraid you are attempting to be devious ~ you know Obama's own father and grandfathers were polygamous, and you know Romney's grandfathers were polygamous. George Romney might have been but I think his wife knew all about the Second Amendment eh!

For those two guys it's not in the far reaches of the distant past generations ago ~ or even all that many decades back!

81 posted on 10/18/2012 10:29:45 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: rbg81
I have a (liberal) lawyer friend whose favorite expression is that we’re a nation of laws, not men. But that is BS given the phenomenon of judges continually deciding that laws which were constitutional are now (magically) not constitutional anymore.

It goes the other way too; something that is no longer constitutional may be held to be constitutional. (Look at prohibition and the War on Drugs, and how they now 'justify' "regulation" under the commerce clause now.)

82 posted on 10/18/2012 10:30:55 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 2harddrive

I wonder if the IRS made everyone file individual and pay that rate regardless of married or not, we would not even have the gay marriage situation. I would be for filing single and have my wife do the save to save marriage. The problem is most people are selfish and would never go for it even though it would save marriage and take gay marriage off the table. People if given the choice would pick having gay marriage over filing “single” on their tax forms which is kinda sad.


83 posted on 10/18/2012 10:31:04 AM PDT by napscoordinator (GOP Candidate 2020 - "Bloomberg 2020 - We vote for whatever crap the GOP puts in front of us.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Buddhism does not prohibit polygamy.


84 posted on 10/18/2012 10:31:47 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey
yup, he set it in motion. Remember, cause and effect is a law beyond the purview of the courts ~ so whatever Mitt did afterward does not undo what he did beforehand!

Everybody in MA is doomed to Outer Darkness anyway so what do any of us care about that crowd.

85 posted on 10/18/2012 10:35:17 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: massmike
violates equal protection

So now are they free to marry ten people? Or a pack of dogs? What are the parameters of 'equal protection' to those numbskulls?

86 posted on 10/18/2012 10:37:19 AM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Venturer
47% of Americans do not pay taxes. I pay mine. Is that equal?

Good point! And why don't we all pay the same percentage - now that is equal.

87 posted on 10/18/2012 10:43:52 AM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: massmike

OMGoodness! The courts have been infiltrated by constitutional domestic terrorists! Someone tell Jan the Man, quick. It time to pull down the judges’ pants and to stick pervert agent hands in their wounds as they enter and exit the building!


88 posted on 10/18/2012 10:45:27 AM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler

I heard Little Richard say that talking about his own conversion from homosexuality probably 30 years ago.


89 posted on 10/18/2012 10:55:04 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: warsaw44

> My state once reared folks such as Revere, Adams and Warren.

Now it rears folks such as Bawney Fwank and Gerry Studds. Maybe “reared” is not the best term to use here, but it fits.

Oh, and now you have the other Warren. Lizard-breath Faux-ca-haunt-us Warren.

I moved out of Mass in the 70s. Too bad a lot of Mass liberals had the same idea and brought their broken politics with them.

It’s a spreading disease, I tell ya.


90 posted on 10/18/2012 11:00:13 AM PDT by Westbrook (Children do not divide your love, they multiply it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: massmike

HUH, how on this earth can they find marriage between one man and one woman unconstitional?

If ever we needed a constitutional amendment it was 10 years ago when all these mentally sick folks started to push their twisted agenda.

Also when is this crap ever going to stop, shall we also state that brother and sister, two men and a woman etc is also unconstitutional


91 posted on 10/18/2012 11:02:05 AM PDT by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massmike

Impeach the judges.


92 posted on 10/18/2012 11:05:20 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massmike

Romney and Ryan will say gay marriage is settled law and time to let it go and move on.


93 posted on 10/18/2012 11:11:19 AM PDT by steve86 (Acerbic by nature not nurture TM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massmike

You know, my 5-year-old granddaughter can’t get a driver’s license. Something about age, driver’s ed training, and ability to operate the controls. Clearly this is a violation of the equal protection clause of the constitution. ACLU, I’ll be waiting for your phone call.


94 posted on 10/18/2012 11:14:07 AM PDT by william clark (Ecclesiastes 10:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 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.

Notice that one and one is in there. If you can't limit it to one man and one woman, you can't limit it to one couple, either. And it would be speciest to say it is limited to human beings, so that is out.

You want to shake this debate up? Go down to City Hall right now and apply to marry your girlfriend, her girlfriend, and their two dogs.

If they give you any trouble, point to this ruling and DEMAND YOUR RIGHTS!!!

95 posted on 10/18/2012 11:14:28 AM PDT by ArGee (Reality - what a concept.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Guarantee that the judges have homosexual pals or family up there and that their emotions and how they felt with those who are family and friends came into this decision.

This court is now saying that anyone can marry who ever and as many.
Therefore polygamy and other kinds of marriage is now allowed.

To think all of this is based on how they like their sex, that is all it is.

Homosexuals are classed as people who like sex with the same sex, that is it, end of full stop, period .

Based on that then how one gets off sexually is now given special rights and to think even some on here and our side defends this sickness


96 posted on 10/18/2012 11:15:21 AM PDT by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Please post your clear and convincing evidence that Romney instituted gay marriage.


97 posted on 10/18/2012 11:18:19 AM PDT by willibeaux (de ole Korean War vet age 82)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: massmike

So why are age of consent laws constitutional? If we can’t discriminate by gender, why can we discriminate by age? We’ll have to abolish the drinking, driving and voting ages as well. We’ll also have to overturn all laws about women going topless, since it’s gender discrimination that men can walk around shirtless but women can’t. So that’s one good thing that could come of this.


98 posted on 10/18/2012 11:18:25 AM PDT by JediJones (ROMNEY/RYAN: TURNAROUND ARTISTS ***** OBAMA/BIDEN: BULL $HIT ARTISTS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Westbrook

got my wife out of that state about 9 years ago and she said it was the best move she ever did but what pisses her off is that those from up there bring their liberal ignorant socialist union ways and votes with them and then try to change states like VA, NC, FL.

I just hope every conservative up in the north east and west coast gets the hell out of their liberal utopia’s and moves to a swing or republican state, hopefully a swing state.


99 posted on 10/18/2012 11:20:51 AM PDT by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: HapaxLegamenon

HATE CRIME LAWS ARE NOW UNCONSTITUTUIONAL.


100 posted on 10/18/2012 11:22:48 AM PDT by jacknhoo (Luke 12:51. Think ye, that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, no; but separation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-156 next 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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