Federal judge rules that part of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional

[Brubricker]

A Boston judge has fired the latest salvo in the battle for gay marriage, ruling Thursday that a federal ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional because it violates states' rights. U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro ruled in favor of gay couples' right to marry, the AP reports, challenging the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) on the ground that it interferes with a state’s right to define marriage.

Same-sex unions have been legal in Massachusetts since 2004, but the state argued that DOMA discriminated against gay married couples by denying them access to the same benefits as heterosexual married couples. Tauro agreed, ruling on two separate challenges to the law that the act forced Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens.

"The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state, and in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment," Tauro wrote in a ruling. "For that reason, the statute is invalid."

In a second case, filed by Gays & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, Tauro ruled that DOMA also violates the Constitution's equal protection clause.

The lawsuit challenges only the portion of the law that prevents the federal government from affording pension and other benefits to same-sex couples.

Boston judge: Federal ban on gay marriage unconstitutional, calls statute discriminatory, 'invalid'

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

A Boston judge has fired the latest salvo in the battle for gay marriage, ruling Thursday that a federal ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional because it violates states' rights. U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro ruled in favor of gay couples' right to marry, the AP reports, challenging the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) on the ground that it interferes with a state’s right to define marriage.

Same-sex unions have been legal in Massachusetts since 2004, but the state argued that DOMA discriminated against gay married couples by denying them access to the same benefits as heterosexual married couples. Tauro agreed, ruling on two separate challenges to the law that the act forced Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens.

"The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state, and in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment," Tauro wrote in a ruling. "For that reason, the statute is invalid."

In a second case, filed by Gays & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, Tauro ruled that DOMA also violates the Constitution's equal protection clause.

The lawsuit challenges only the portion of the law that prevents the federal government from affording pension and other benefits to same-sex couples.

Boston judge: Federal ban on gay marriage unconstitutional, calls statute discriminatory, 'invalid'

Then the health care bill is also unconstitutional based on states rights too. GO BOSTON! Set this type of precedence.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The Federal government has no businesses being involved in peoples' bedrooms. It is not up to them to decide who can or cannot get married. This is a good ruling.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The Federal government has no businesses being involved in peoples' bedrooms. It is not up to them to decide who can or cannot get married. This is a good ruling.

I agree and I feel the same about all of my rights and liberties. now get out of my medicine cabinet.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Then the health care bill is also unconstitutional based on states rights too. GO BOSTON! Set this type of precedence.

Good point. I wonder if they'll think to mention this ruling.

 

[Charles_Main]

A very good decision about a very bad law. I do not care how you feel about Gay Marriage, if you do not support this ruling, you do not support strict interpretation of the constitution. This is clearly a case where the Fed has no say, It is a states issue.

 

[Avatar4321]

DOMA violates states rights? How so? It was written specifically to protect states rights.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Then the health care bill is also unconstitutional based on states rights too. GO BOSTON! Set this type of precedence.

Maybe. Wouldn't it be nice to see red states not take care of their own citizens? After a few years everyone would move to a blue state and the next census would take congressional seats away from red states.

GO BOSTON!!!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

A Boston judge has fired the latest salvo in the battle for gay marriage, ruling Thursday that a federal ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional because it violates states' rights. U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro ruled in favor of gay couples' right to marry, the AP reports, challenging the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) on the ground that it interferes with a state’s right to define marriage.

Same-sex unions have been legal in Massachusetts since 2004, but the state argued that DOMA discriminated against gay married couples by denying them access to the same benefits as heterosexual married couples. Tauro agreed, ruling on two separate challenges to the law that the act forced Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens.

"The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state, and in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment," Tauro wrote in a ruling. "For that reason, the statute is invalid."

In a second case, filed by Gays & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, Tauro ruled that DOMA also violates the Constitution's equal protection clause.

The lawsuit challenges only the portion of the law that prevents the federal government from affording pension and other benefits to same-sex couples.

Boston judge: Federal ban on gay marriage unconstitutional, calls statute discriminatory, 'invalid'

too bad you didn't know how to make a great headline. there was such potential here -- squandered away. sigh

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Then the health care bill is also unconstitutional based on states rights too. GO BOSTON! Set this type of precedence.

Maybe. Wouldn't it be nice to see red states not take care of their own citizens? After a few years everyone would move to a blue state and the next census would take congressional seats away from red states.

GO BOSTON!!!

Too funny dante. Keep em coming.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

DOMA violates states rights? How so? It was written specifically to protect states rights.

It's a federal directive. d'oh!!!

your ignorance is showing. you're starting to sound like hboats arguing a federal program is not really a federal program, even though it is an ICE program: http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/124167-why-we-should-all-be-friends-of-the-court-when-hboats-sues-fox-news-and-talk-radio.html

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Then the health care bill is also unconstitutional based on states rights too. GO BOSTON! Set this type of precedence.

Maybe. Wouldn't it be nice to see red states not take care of their own citizens? After a few years everyone would move to a blue state and the next census would take congressional seats away from red states.

GO BOSTON!!!

Too funny dante. Keep em coming.

It's like the illegals moving to the states that welcomed cheap non union labor. Now they cry about illegals.

I may have left the Democratic party, but my blood runs blue. I'm from Beacon Hill.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Maybe. Wouldn't it be nice to see red states not take care of their own citizens? After a few years everyone would move to a blue state and the next census would take congressional seats away from red states.

GO BOSTON!!!

Except reality proves you wrong. It is the "red" states that have been growing the past ten years and the "blue" states that have been withering. People have grown tired of the higher costs of living in the northeast, the Rust Belt, and California. I work in Charlotte and half of us in the office are yankees.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Then the health care bill is also unconstitutional based on states rights too. GO BOSTON! Set this type of precedence.

Good point. I wonder if they'll think to mention this ruling.

the house idiot speaks?

try understanding the differences. the distinctions are glaring.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Maybe. Wouldn't it be nice to see red states not take care of their own citizens? After a few years everyone would move to a blue state and the next census would take congressional seats away from red states.

GO BOSTON!!!

Except reality proves you wrong. It is the "red" states that have been growing the past ten years and the "blue" states that have been withering. People have grown tired of the higher costs of living in the northeast, the Rust Belt, and California. I work in Charlotte and half of us in the office are yankees.

moron. we are talking about if red and blue states had and did not have health care.

premise: more people would move to states with health care.

--

and you are dead wrong about CA. too many talking points clouding up your mind. census data...

 

[Avatar4321]

DOMA violates states rights? How so? It was written specifically to protect states rights.

It's a federal directive. d'oh!!!

your ignorance is showing. you're starting to sound like hboats arguing a federal program is not really a federal program, even though it is an ICE program: http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/124167-why-we-should-all-be-friends-of-the-court-when-hboats-sues-fox-news-and-talk-radio.html

It was a federal directive to prevent the Federal Government from usurping State marriage laws.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Maybe. Wouldn't it be nice to see red states not take care of their own citizens? After a few years everyone would move to a blue state and the next census would take congressional seats away from red states.

GO BOSTON!!!

Except reality proves you wrong. It is the "red" states that have been growing the past ten years and the "blue" states that have been withering. People have grown tired of the higher costs of living in the northeast, the Rust Belt, and California. I work in Charlotte and half of us in the office are yankees.

moron. we are talking about if red and blue states had and did not have health care.

premise: more people would move to states with health care.

Being that the majority of the country disapproves of ObamaCare I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. You assume that people would move to states with government funded health care, but again, in order to do that the cost of living would rise and the quality of the care probably wouldn't be that good, as evidenced in countries that have universal health care.

Hawaii and Tennessee had universal care for a time and we had RomneyCare back in MA. Nobody was flocking to those states for the health care. HI and TN ended up disabling theirs because it was too expensive and the cost of health insurance in MA has skyrocketed.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Except reality proves you wrong. It is the "red" states that have been growing the past ten years and the "blue" states that have been withering. People have grown tired of the higher costs of living in the northeast, the Rust Belt, and California. I work in Charlotte and half of us in the office are yankees.

moron. we are talking about if red and blue states had and did not have health care.

premise: more people would move to states with health care.

Being that the majority of the country disapproves of ObamaCare I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. You assume that people would move to states with government funded health care, but again, in order to do that the cost of living would rise and the quality of the care probably wouldn't be that good, as evidenced in countries that have universal health care.

Hawaii and Tennessee had universal care for a time and we had RomneyCare back in MA. Nobody was flocking to those states for the health care. HI and TN ended up disabling theirs because it was too expensive and the cost of health insurance in MA has skyrocketed.

If some states have health care and others do not, people will move. People move for jobs. Jobs no longer help pay health care. Pay has dropped. Not very many people can afford health care on their own.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

moron. we are talking about if red and blue states had and did not have health care.

premise: more people would move to states with health care.

Being that the majority of the country disapproves of ObamaCare I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. You assume that people would move to states with government funded health care, but again, in order to do that the cost of living would rise and the quality of the care probably wouldn't be that good, as evidenced in countries that have universal health care.

Hawaii and Tennessee had universal care for a time and we had RomneyCare back in MA. Nobody was flocking to those states for the health care. HI and TN ended up disabling theirs because it was too expensive and the cost of health insurance in MA has skyrocketed.

If some states have health care and others do not, people will move. People move for jobs. Jobs no longer help pay health care. Pay has dropped. Not very many people can afford health care on their own.

So how come people weren't storming down the doors of Hawaii, Tennessee, and Massachusetts? In fact, people have been leaving Mass.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

DOMA violates states rights? How so? It was written specifically to protect states rights.

It's a federal directive. d'oh!!!

your ignorance is showing. you're starting to sound like hboats arguing a federal program is not really a federal program, even though it is an ICE program: http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/124167-why-we-should-all-be-friends-of-the-court-when-hboats-sues-fox-news-and-talk-radio.html

It was a federal directive to prevent the Federal Government from usurping State marriage laws.

read what the court said. This is like the Massachusetts G?ay Marriage ruling. I lived with and was friends with many progressives and gay activists who misread the Marshall ruling. They initially thought it would lead to a Vermont style partnership thing. They might have been influenced by being Deaniacs. I disagreed immediately.

I pointed out the Separate but equal argument. Marshall said either remake laws and the State Constitution or gay marriage is a right between two individuals. No separate but equal.

What does this ruling say? Pay attention. Read the ruling, then argue over whether it is san argument that can be used in the health care debate.