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 ...
It’s decades old and silly. God made all.
What they really meant was it violates their extrapolation of equal protection into special protection for special categories.
Court: More Equal
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.
Obama really thinks rectal matrimony is a winning issue.
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.
The American people are for DOMA. Bring it up in the debate by all means, Mitt. Make Obama defend his position.
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.
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 thats it, and thats 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.
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?
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.
Marriage has always, through human history, been defined as a union of a man and a woman. How would this violate the Constitution?
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.
God made all, but all can’t marry all. Think of the ramifications if it were so.
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.
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.
...and all these years later,gay “marriage” STILL is NOT legal in Massachusetts!
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.
House Bill 1708
AN ACT TO PROTECT MASSACHUSETTS FAMILIES THROUGH EQUAL ACCESS TO CIVIL
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.