DOMA declared unconstitutional... AGAIN

Jul 31, 2012 Full story: www.dailykos.com 80

The U.S. District Court for Connecticut has struck down the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" adding to the litany of federal courts finding the 1996 law to be unconstitutional.

Full Story
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

#1 Jul 31, 2012
And this is a surprise why?

I guess all of the Judges ruling Section 3 of DOMA as UNCONSTITUTIONAL must all be Gay or Lesbian themselves and should have recused themselves, right?

“Greetings!”

Since: Dec 06

Tampa, FL

#2 Jul 31, 2012
Well, the SCOTUS has alot to think about now! that makes THREE rulings by lower courts on the unconstitutionality of DOMA!

AND THE WALLS COME TUMBLIN' DOWN!
Bringmedinner

San Jose, CA

#3 Jul 31, 2012
Confused and constantly assaulted for decades, the vast majority of people in the US trying to be moral people are finally confronted with the truth of the matter... homosexuals, led by abrasive and arrogant perverts pushing depravity and lack of morality, must be once again considered nothing more than an alien disease. Anti-human influences in America have been able to stack some courts with elements fundamentally opposed to the sense and sensibilities taught by our founders. They must likewise be relegated to the garbage pile of history.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#4 Jul 31, 2012
Bringmedinner wrote:
Confused and constantly assaulted for decades, the vast majority of people in the US trying to be moral people are finally confronted with the truth of the matter... homosexuals, led by abrasive and arrogant perverts pushing depravity and lack of morality, must be once again considered nothing more than an alien disease. Anti-human influences in America have been able to stack some courts with elements fundamentally opposed to the sense and sensibilities taught by our founders. They must likewise be relegated to the garbage pile of history.
Like these?

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#5 Jul 31, 2012
Bringmedinner wrote:
Confused and constantly assaulted for decades, the vast majority of people in the US trying to be moral people are finally confronted with the truth of the matter... homosexuals, led by abrasive and arrogant perverts pushing depravity and lack of morality, must be once again considered nothing more than an alien disease. Anti-human influences in America have been able to stack some courts with elements fundamentally opposed to the sense and sensibilities taught by our founders. They must likewise be relegated to the garbage pile of history.
Yeah, good luck with that.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#6 Jul 31, 2012
TampaBob wrote:
Well, the SCOTUS has alot to think about now! that makes THREE rulings by lower courts on the unconstitutionality of DOMA!
AND THE WALLS COME TUMBLIN' DOWN!
This actually makes the tenth time DOMA has been ruled unconstitutional, it was struck down in Gill, Commonwealth, Windsor, Gorlinski, the other California court clerk case, Pedersen, three times in bankruptcy cases and the three judge panel hearing the combined Gill/Commonwealth appeal. Before the Supremes decide which of the multiple cases they are going to hear, we may even have a ruling in the service members challenge to add to it. Ten rulings involving twelve judges (at least, some of these cases are hard to keep track of) and not one has said that Section 3 is constitutional.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#7 Jul 31, 2012
EdmondWA wrote:
Yeah, good luck with that.
Do you think it will help him to know that this Judge was a W appointee with a conservative track record that found it unconstitutional this time around?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8 Jul 31, 2012
The SCOTUS meets Sep 24th to decide which cases to take for the coming term. I see no way for them to avoid the DOMA cases, which will probably all be consolidated into one case.

Section 3 of DOMA will fall by Jun '13
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#9 Aug 1, 2012
Do you guys even understand that DOMA is falling as an improper law by the FEDERAL govt. In short, state's get to decide, that's the states of which 31 ban it...

you do get where the end of this road is right?
You are cheering your own demise...

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

#10 Aug 1, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
Do you guys even understand that DOMA is falling as an improper law by the FEDERAL govt. In short, state's get to decide, that's the states of which 31 ban it...
you do get where the end of this road is right?
You are cheering your own demise...
We certainly do......but the question is Do you understand what it means that Section 3 of DOMA is UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

In other words if DOMA is found to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL by SCOTUS, the individual Mini DOMA's could fall as well......but at the very least.......LEGALLY MARRIED SAME-SEX COUPLES AROUND THE US WILL HAVE THEIR STATE LEGAL MARRIAGES FINALLY RECOGNIZED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND RECEIVE THE ABILITY TO FILE JOINT FEDERAL TAXES, GET VA BENEFITS AND SO FORTH!!!!

Glad to clear up any confusion you might have had!!!

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#11 Aug 1, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
Do you guys even understand that DOMA is falling as an improper law by the FEDERAL govt. In short, state's get to decide, that's the states of which 31 ban it...
you do get where the end of this road is right?
You are cheering your own demise...
On the contrary, killing off DOMA section 3 isn't the last step in the process, it is the first. The federal government will now be required to recognize same sex couples as legally married based on the laws of the place of celebration, even if the couple now lives in a state which does not provide such recognition, just as they do EVERY other legally married couple. This is going to create a very obvious equal protection problem for those states that thought they would be able to ban same sex marriages. They're going to have all these couples who the federal government says are legally married, how long do you imagine before the laws and amendments that say they aren't, are dragged before federal courts for a well deserved clubbing? By the end of this decade, same sex couples will be able to marry in any state and there is absolutely nothing that can be done to prevent that. Once Section 3 is overturned, those anti-equality amendments are going on life support with the plug already half way out.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#12 Aug 2, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>On the contrary, killing off DOMA section 3 isn't the last step in the process, it is the first. The federal government will now be required to recognize same sex couples as legally married based on the laws of the place of celebration, even if the couple now lives in a state which does not provide such recognition, just as they do EVERY other legally married couple. This is going to create a very obvious equal protection problem for those states that thought they would be able to ban same sex marriages. They're going to have all these couples who the federal government says are legally married, how long do you imagine before the laws and amendments that say they aren't, are dragged before federal courts for a well deserved clubbing? By the end of this decade, same sex couples will be able to marry in any state and there is absolutely nothing that can be done to prevent that. Once Section 3 is overturned, those anti-equality amendments are going on life support with the plug already half way out.
cousins can marry in some states, and not others....no biggie...
so you do get that the states will decide and these DOMA cases say a federal law defining marriage IN ANY WAY will fail, right?
the same states that overwhelmingly voted to ban ssm?
even CA for cripses sake!
but do cheer these decisions on and take note that section 2 of DOMA is not being challenged and ask yourself why...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#13 Aug 2, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
We certainly do......but the question is Do you understand what it means that Section 3 of DOMA is UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
!
yes, it means marriage is defined by the STATES...the same states that vote EVERY TIME to ban ssm.
do YOU get it?

and ask yourself how we have a federally guaranteed right to something the federal govt has no control over per these decisions?

you guys don't think ahead very well...

state sovereignty = ssm ban.
these decisions are founded on the state's poqwers and find gays have no right.

again cheer on, but I am cheering too, and you need to ask yourself why...

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#14 Aug 2, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>On the contrary, killing off DOMA section 3 isn't the last step in the process, it is the first. The federal government will now be required to recognize same sex couples as legally married based on the laws of the place of celebration, even if the couple now lives in a state which does not provide such recognition, just as they do EVERY other legally married couple. This is going to create a very obvious equal protection problem for those states that thought they would be able to ban same sex marriages. They're going to have all these couples who the federal government says are legally married, how long do you imagine before the laws and amendments that say they aren't, are dragged before federal courts for a well deserved clubbing? By the end of this decade, same sex couples will be able to marry in any state and there is absolutely nothing that can be done to prevent that. Once Section 3 is overturned, those anti-equality amendments are going on life support with the plug already half way out.
Not quite the way it will play.

They will use the Military and IRS solutions.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#15 Aug 2, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
cousins can marry in some states, and not others....no biggie...
But other than if you and your 1st cousin are residents of Kentucky, all states will recognize cousin couples as legally married based upon the place of celebration. THAT is why it is no big deal that cousins can marry in some states and not others. I imagine that if any cousin couple really wanted to challenge the constitutionality of their state's restriction in federal court, they'd actually have a fairly easy time of it. There is no compelling interest of the state that is served by the prohibition. Modern science has proved that they aren't close enough genetically related to fall under the two headed baby argument and since they are so far down on the list of the common law order of familial relationships, they might as well be considered legal strangers to you.
Jane Dough wrote:
so you do get that the states will decide and these DOMA cases say a federal law defining marriage IN ANY WAY will fail, right?
You do realize that the states are bound by the federal constitution's guarantee of the individuals right to marry and that the federal government will have to recognize legally married same sex couples, regardless if the state they are living in recognizes them as married or not when DOMA is overturned, don't you? Yes, the states will still be able to discriminate against same sex couples after Section 3 is overturned. How long they will be permitted to continue that discrimination will be determined in very short order after Section 3 is overturned.
Jane Dough wrote:
the same states that overwhelmingly voted to ban ssm?
even CA for cripses sake!
Just because you can claim a majority supports you doesn't prove that you're right. State constitutional amendments can be and have been overturned, when they are found to f8ck with federal rights. California's ban is already dead, same sex marriages should be returning to California on September 25th, the day after the Supremes announce that they aren't hearing the appeal of the Perry case
Jane Dough wrote:
but do cheer these decisions on and take note that section 2 of DOMA is not being challenged and ask yourself why...
Don't have to. Section 2, which provides states with protection from the multitude of full faith and credit claims from legally married elsewhere same sex couples in every state, that they would have probably lost, frequently, repeatedly and often by now, is believed to be constitutional. It has been challenged several times now, all but once, incredibly unsuccessfully and the one time someone was successful, they were quickly overturned on appeal. As far as I know, none of these cases are still active and haven't been in years. Besides, who needs an untested full faith and credit claim (ff&c has been applied in cases of divorce, but never in cases of marriage, even of the opposite sex variety), when you're being handed a darn good equal protection claim brought on by the demise of Section 3? Section 2 doesn't offer the kind of constitutional protections that they are desperately going to need now. Darn.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#16 Aug 2, 2012
snyper wrote:
Not quite the way it will play.
They will use the Military and IRS solutions.
How so?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#17 Aug 2, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>How so?
In both cases, they will act according to the Laws where the couples actually live.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#18 Aug 3, 2012
snyper wrote:
In both cases, they will act according to the Laws where the couples actually live.
Once Section 3 is overturned, the federal government will be in the unenviable position of having to recognize Adam and Steve, Ellen and Eve as legally married, once the state which marries them says they are. This will apply regardless of where that couple ends up in this great land we call America and that's the unenviable part, because some states are going to kick and cream like hell over what they are going to have to do. Unless and until they get official notification that parties a and b in a legal couple are no longer legally a couple, a legal couple they shall remain and so will the federal rights that implies. The federal government isn't in the job of the enforcement of state laws these couples may or may not be breaking. So, if the states want to try and ban a whole class of legal marriages, that's their problem, not that of our federal government. Unless you were a resident of a state which prohibited you from state shopping to circumvent their marriage laws (a trump card that the state will have to pull on you), federal recognition is yours, regardless if the state you now live in says otherwise.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#19 Aug 3, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
yes, it means marriage is defined by the STATES...the same states that vote EVERY TIME to ban ssm.
do YOU get it?
and ask yourself how we have a federally guaranteed right to something the federal govt has no control over per these decisions?
you guys don't think ahead very well...
state sovereignty = ssm ban.
these decisions are founded on the state's poqwers and find gays have no right.
again cheer on, but I am cheering too, and you need to ask yourself why...
1. States used to be able to ban inter-racial couples from marrying too, until the courts finally stepped in and stopped that.

2. Until the courts step in, these state bans will be overturned state-by-state starting in Sep with California, followed in Nov with Washington & Maine & Maryland. Then next year we get Illinois & Hawaii & Rhode Island. Then the year after that it's Oregon, Delaware, Nevada, etc, etc, etc.

This only ends one way, and you & your fellow bigots will lose.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#20 Aug 3, 2012
The equal protection arguments challenging state amendments on the basis of that federal recognition, are being drafted even before the Supremes have said whether or not they are going to hear the end of Section 3. There's going to be a good old fashioned turkey shoot happening on both the state and federal level and it starts the day after the law is struck down.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second ... (Nov '13) 5 min Squach 11,341
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 12 min It aint necessari... 122,126
NJ Gov. Christie back again in Iowa; 2016 on mind? 20 min Responsibility 48
Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 28 min Earthling-1 33,108
Military nears holy grail: Pizza that lasts years (Feb '14) 29 min JoeBaker 5
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 30 min King Clutch 273,049
Michele Bachmann: Obama Won Because He's Black ... (Feb '14) 39 min Swedenforever 355
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr King Clutch 1,129,383
Who do you side with in Ferguson? 2 hr cyrus neighbors 7,265

US News People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE