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 ...
> 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.
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.
For those two guys it's not in the far reaches of the distant past generations ago ~ or even all that many decades back!
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.)
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.
Buddhism does not prohibit polygamy.
Everybody in MA is doomed to Outer Darkness anyway so what do any of us care about that crowd.
So now are they free to marry ten people? Or a pack of dogs? What are the parameters of 'equal protection' to those numbskulls?
Good point! And why don't we all pay the same percentage - now that is equal.
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!
I heard Little Richard say that talking about his own conversion from homosexuality probably 30 years ago.
> 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.
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
Impeach the judges.
Romney and Ryan will say gay marriage is settled law and time to let it go and move on.
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.
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!!!
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
Please post your clear and convincing evidence that Romney instituted gay marriage.
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.
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.
HATE CRIME LAWS ARE NOW UNCONSTITUTUIONAL.
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.