Federal judge in Boston rules DOMA unconstitutional

[Holmes]

http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=107807

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Thomas D]

Great News!!

[TheGreatOne]

Very good decision.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Glad to hear it. If a state decides that homosexual couples should be permitted to marry, it seems terribly wrong that they should not be able to establish those marriages as equal to those of heterosexual couples.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

On the one hand, I fully support a state's right to define marriage as whatever it wants (and DOMA didn't affect that right whatsoever); however, I also feel that for Federal purposes, the government should have the right to define marriage, as to avoid descrepencies between states' laws.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

    Glad to hear it. If a state decides that homosexual couples should be permitted to marry, it seems terribly wrong that they should not be able to establish those marriages as equal to those of heterosexual couples.

But DOMA didn't deny states the right to establish those marriages as equal to those of heterosexual couples.

[Holmes]

    Glad to hear it. If a state decides that homosexual couples should be permitted to marry, it seems terribly wrong that they should not be able to establish those marriages as equal to those of heterosexual couples.

But DOMA didn't deny states the right to establish those marriages as equal to those of heterosexual couples.

But federally, it saw no distinction between the definition of marriage between states like, Nebraska and Massachusetts, for example. Despite there being a large difference.

[Free Palestine]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I wasn't aware that the Tenth Amendment was still part of the Constitution.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Glad to hear it. If a state decides that homosexual couples should be permitted to marry, it seems terribly wrong that they should not be able to establish those marriages as equal to those of heterosexual couples.

But DOMA didn't deny states the right to establish those marriages as equal to those of heterosexual couples.

     Except for the fact that heterosexual couples were entitled to certain benefits through marriage that homosexual couples were not.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

     Glad to hear it. If a state decides that homosexual couples should be permitted to marry, it seems terribly wrong that they should not be able to establish those marriages as equal to those of heterosexual couples.

But DOMA didn't deny states the right to establish those marriages as equal to those of heterosexual couples.

     Except for the fact that heterosexual couples were entitled to certain benefits through marriage that homosexual couples were not.

But that would be at the federal level.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Glad to hear it. If a state decides that homosexual couples should be permitted to marry, it seems terribly wrong that they should not be able to establish those marriages as equal to those of heterosexual couples.

But DOMA didn't deny states the right to establish those marriages as equal to those of heterosexual couples.

     Except for the fact that heterosexual couples were entitled to certain benefits through marriage that homosexual couples were not.

But that would be at the federal level.

     Which is what I am saying. Homosexual marriages would by necessity not entail all of the benefits that heterosexual marriages do. Because the federal government denies the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples, states cannot confer a status onto same-sex couples that is completely equal to the status conferred onto a married opposite-sex couple.

[Magic 8-Ball]

Sounds good.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I don't see the Tenth Amendment argument standing up on appeal under any circumstances.  There are all sorts of areas where both State and Federal governments legislate, and often in a manner that applies to private employers, yet not to State employees in the case of Federal law, and not to Federal employees in the case of State law.  McCulloch v. Maryland is going to place a hefty burden on any attempt to use State law to force the Federal government to pay benefits to the spouse of a Federal employee who is in a homosexual marriage.

The Fifth Amendment argument also seems iffy. and I don't see the current Supreme Court as likely to overturn Baker v. Nelson, which is what would be required to find that denying same-sex marriage constitutes a denial of Due Process under the Constitution.  Maybe with a different court, the Due Process argument might gain traction, but not this one, and none of the Justices that would stand in the way of overturning Baker v. Nelson are likely to leave the court before this case would reach them.

[Torie]

I agree with Ernest. Well done.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

On the one hand, I fully support a state's right to define marriage as whatever it wants (and DOMA didn't affect that right whatsoever); however, I also feel that for Federal purposes, the government should have the right to define marriage, as to avoid descrepencies between states' laws.

Do you believe that the insurance coverage clause in the HCR bill should be struck down on the basis of violating the 10th amendment?

Remember, DOMA was struck down by the 10th Amendment!

I just can't wait to watch the overweight, white, angry, middle-aged males.. I mean.. erm.. the Tea Partiers boil over with fury over this trampling on their right to officially discriminate against the dirty, unnatural f****ts.

The 10th amendment only counts when it BENEFITS THE REPUBLICANS, erm, I mean... um... patriotic conservative Muricans DAMNIT!

[Lunar]

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

On the one hand, I fully support a state's right to define marriage as whatever it wants (and DOMA didn't affect that right whatsoever); however, I also feel that for Federal purposes, the government should have the right to define marriage, as to avoid descrepencies between states' laws.

Do you believe that the insurance coverage clause in the HCR bill should be struck down on the basis of violating the 10th amendment?

Remember, DOMA was struck down by the 10th Amendment!

I just can't wait to watch the overweight, white, angry, middle-aged males.. I mean.. erm.. the Tea Partiers boil over with fury over this trampling on their right to officially discriminate against the dirty, unnatural f****ts.

The 10th amendment only counts when it BENEFITS THE REPUBLICANS, erm, I mean... um... patriotic conservative Muricans DAMNIT!

It'd certainly be illuminating to casually ask, off-the-record, Ron Paul & his son, who base a giant part of their Constitutional philosophy on an extremely rigid view of the 10th amendment & the Commerce Clause, what they think about this issue. 

[Ban my account ffs!]

The reason I despise Ron and Rand Paul is that they insist on taking the worst aspects of libertarianism and marrying it with some of the worst aspects of conservatism.

The very parts of the libertarian philosophy that I agree with (being free to do with your body as you choose or to have a loving relationship with somebody of hte same sex).. are the very parts they reject.

Edit:  I also really get this feeling that Ron Paul doesn't think the way he does because he loves freedom.. but because he feels this intense duty to "follow the rules".. that is, follow the constitution to a T.  It's not really about your freedom.. but doing what somebody else told him to do.

[Torie]

Calm down Snow. If the penalty provision of HCR goes down (that is the provision in Constitutional play), it won't be by virtue of the 10th amendment, but rather by virtue of exceeding the reach of the commerce clause, or more likely, because the penalty is really in the nature of a tax.

The anti-DOMA ruling will probably be reversed by SCOTUS anyway. The conservative 5 will freak using this unused amendment for the first time to help out the "fags."  In fact, it might open a Pandora's box.  What else that has been ignored would "now" be covered by the 10th amendment?

Addendum: Well, it turns out that there are two extant cases where the 10th amendment was used by SCOTUS to strike down a federal law as intruding on state sovereignty (see the copy and paste below), but notice that in both the feds were in essence ordering the states to pass their own laws to carry out some federal purpose, rather than just passing its own law which it will enforce, preempting the field.

"The federalism debate again resurfaced in the 1992 case of New York v United States, when the Court invalidated a provision of the Radioactive Waste Policy Act that required states failing to develop an adequate plan for disposing of waste generated within their own borders to, "at the request of the owner or generator of the waste, take title to the waste."  The Court found that the so-called "take title" provision effectively "commandered the legislative processes" of states--something that the federal government cannot constitutionally do.

"In Printz v United States (1997), the Court again found that Congress had unconstitutionally intruded upon state sovereignty.  The law in question in Printz was a provision of the Brady Act requiring chief law enforcement officers of states to run background checks on prospective hand gun purchasers.  The Court rejected the federal government's argument that it could enlist states in enforcing federal law, even though it might be unconstitutional to require states to make law--the problem identified in New York v U. S."

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Snowguy, this and the HCR bill are 2 very different cases.  This is dealing with federal recognition of a civil contract.  The other is dealing with a requirement to purchase something that is dealt with at the state level.  For instance, if DOMA said that states cannot recognize gay marriages, I would absolutely say that it should be struck down.

[Bacon King]

Isn't the obvious Constitutional argument against DOMA in Article 4, Section 1 of the Constitution?

Or does Congress's power "by general Laws [to] prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof" include the ability to outright eliminate the requirement that states give "Full Faith and Credit" to the legal public act of monogamous marriage from other states, regardless of the specifics of gender?

[phk]

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

On the one hand, I fully support a state's right to define marriage as whatever it wants (and DOMA didn't affect that right whatsoever); however, I also feel that for Federal purposes, the government should have the right to define marriage, as to avoid descrepencies between states' laws.

Do you believe that the insurance coverage clause in the HCR bill should be struck down on the basis of violating the 10th amendment?

Remember, DOMA was struck down by the 10th Amendment!

I just can't wait to watch the overweight, white, angry, middle-aged males.. I mean.. erm.. the Tea Partiers boil over with fury over this trampling on their right to officially discriminate against the dirty, unnatural f****ts.

The 10th amendment only counts when it BENEFITS THE REPUBLICANS, erm, I mean... um... patriotic conservative Muricans DAMNIT!

Interesting.

[Brittain33]

On the one hand, I fully support a state's right to define marriage as whatever it wants (and DOMA didn't affect that right whatsoever); however, I also feel that for Federal purposes, the government should have the right to define marriage, as to avoid descrepencies between states' laws.

But it seems to me that the federal government never needed to do this before 1996, nor did discrepancies among state marriage laws pose problems in the past. The federal government left marriage law to the states. Shouldn't the burden of proof be on your side to explain why the federal government should be able to tell Massachusetts it has to discriminate against, say, the spouses of military veterans because you and a majority of members of Congress disapprove of the form of marriage the state of Massachusetts permits us? What problem is that solving that is worse than the one it creates?

[Vepres]

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

On the one hand, I fully support a state's right to define marriage as whatever it wants (and DOMA didn't affect that right whatsoever); however, I also feel that for Federal purposes, the government should have the right to define marriage, as to avoid descrepencies between states' laws.

Do you believe that the insurance coverage clause in the HCR bill should be struck down on the basis of violating the 10th amendment?

Remember, DOMA was struck down by the 10th Amendment!

I just can't wait to watch the overweight, white, angry, middle-aged males.. I mean.. erm.. the Tea Partiers boil over with fury over this trampling on their right to officially discriminate against the dirty, unnatural f****ts.

The 10th amendment only counts when it BENEFITS THE REPUBLICANS, erm, I mean... um... patriotic conservative Muricans DAMNIT!

Seriously, stop hacking.

[Derek]

http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=107807

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They did and the federal government ignores the constitution all the time.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

On the one hand, I fully support a state's right to define marriage as whatever it wants (and DOMA didn't affect that right whatsoever); however, I also feel that for Federal purposes, the government should have the right to define marriage, as to avoid descrepencies between states' laws.

But it seems to me that the federal government never needed to do this before 1996, nor did discrepancies among state marriage laws pose problems in the past. The federal government left marriage law to the states. Shouldn't the burden of proof be on your side to explain why the federal government should be able to tell Massachusetts it has to discriminate against, say, the spouses of military veterans because you and a majority of members of Congress disapprove of the form of marriage the state of Massachusetts permits us? What problem is that solving that is worse than the one it creates?

DOMA has no effects on what the state of Massachusetts does.  That's my point.  And it didn't matter in the past, because most states had VERY similar marriage laws so that it didn't create a federal problem.  Let's put it this way, if Utah were to allow polygamy, I'd be fine with that, but the federal government would also have a legitimate reason to define marriage (from a federal standpoint) as only between one man and one woman.