DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional By Federal Appeals Court

[mikexmoran]

It ain't the liberals that are making this an issue. But we cool, brah.

Just joshing a bit.

 

[Will E Worm]

I contribute a great deal, thank you, and when you're rolling and trolling you can expect me to smack you down.

Not at all. :tongue:

No Will, they don't. A very few people say that and they all live in cabins in Arizona.

Far more people than you think do. They live all over this country.

Just one of many videos you need to watch.

 

[zeeblofowl_1969]

Reminds me Fidel Castro on meth with Dumbo ears......

 

[Mayhem]

Not at all. :tongue:



Far more people than you think do. They live all over this country.

Just one of many videos you need to watch.

I actually watched this when it happened. It happened during the Clinton administration.

 

[xfire]

Not at all. :tongue:

How predictable. Can't teach an Asshat new tricks.

 

[PlumpRump]

Ummm...yeah, so how do you account for the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause then. You know, the one that states that you can't give one group protection or privileges (with the exceptions of them being convicted felons or non-adults and even then in a pretty limited degree) under the law that you deny others, like for example, allowing one segment of the population to be able to marry and another to not be able to. So it's not the Federal Government or the States government telling the other side anything. It's the Constitution, the supreme law of the land and the basis of which our entire country's legal structure is based on, that they both agreed to that's binding them. Or at least it should be.

For that matter how do you explain away the Constitution’s "Full Faith and Credit Clause" that states have to recognize each others public acts, records and so forth.

Constitutionally, either everybody adult can marry another adult or nobody can, and as long as either the federal government or the states recognize a marriage they all must do so.

D-rock, what are you talking about? It is equal protection under the law for all citizens. It doesn't say anything about groups. If a law is written in a state then all citizens are subject to it. If you want to talk about groups how about the age to get married? Every state sets their own guidelines. Same with common law. Your sate decides how you file your federal return. married or not. I'm not saying if I am for or against it, but there is nothing at the federal level that regulates this.

AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


BobJustBob.

Well,

...for starters, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the guarantee of equal treatment within the equal protection clause does not mean that governments cannot ever treat different people differently. States don't have to permit children to drive cars, for example, nor must they allow senior citizens to enroll in elementary school. As a basic rule, the Court has said that it is reasonable for states to build categories or classifications into the laws that they pass, and in fact, the "rational basis test" is one of the standards used by the courts to determine whether these classifications are fair. Also known as the Lindsley test, this standard says that if the reasons for treating people differently are reasonable and logically related to the law's purpose, then they are constitutional. Opponents of gay marriage insist that there is a rational basis (usually, they argue, rooted in cultural or religious tradition) for restricting marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman.

 

[Will E Worm]

I actually watched this when it happened. It happened during the Clinton administration.

There's many more videos like this on youtube and other sites.

How predictable. Can't teach an Asshat new tricks.

:drama:

 

[cindy CD/TV]

Let people marry whoever they want. Fuck the government, fuck social conservatives, fuck tree-hugging liberals and fuck whomever uses marriage as a political tool. Marriage, in the spirtual sense, stems from the very core of what it means to be human. It's not a right given by law and, therefore, not restrained by government, church or community. No one should ever, EVER make rules or laws governing how people live their lives or who they fuck or who they marry. But America, sadly, is a country choking on its own hypocrisy. How can we ban LGBT people the same rights and benefits as "normal" Americans and still say that "all men are created equal?"

 

[Mayhem]

Defense Of Marriage Act Ruled Unconstitutional By Another Federal Judge

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...age-act-ruled-unconstitutional_n_1575807.html

The Defense of Marriage Act suffered another defeat in federal court Wednesday when a New York district judge ruled the statute unconstitutional.

The ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by Edie Windsor, who had claimed that the government had undermined her marriage to her partner, Thea Spyer, when Spyer passed away in 2009.

From the ACLU press release:

When Thea Spyer died in 2009, she left all of her property to Windsor, including the apartment they shared. Because they were married, Spyer's estate normally would have passed to her spouse without any estate tax. But because DOMA prevents recognition of the otherwise valid marriages of same-sex couples, Windsor had to pay more than $363,000 in federal estate taxes.

Windsor had argued that DOMA violated the Constitution's equal protection guarantee because it allowed the government to treat marriages between heterosexual couples and same-sex couples differently when dealing with issues such as inheritance. Obama's Department of Justice used similar language in a 2011 statement announcing that the administration would no longer defend DOMA.

The court agreed with Windsor and the Obama administration in its ruling, finding that the measure “should not be presumed to be constitutional and should instead be subject to a heightened form of judicial scrutiny.”

That came as a relief to Windsor, who spoke after the case.

“Thea and I shared our lives together for 44 years, and I miss her each and every day,” she said. “It’s thrilling to have a court finally recognize how unfair it is for the government to have treated us as though we were strangers.”

DOMA has taken a legal beating over the past year. Just last week, a federal court in Massachusetts ruled against the statute in a decision that paved the way for the Supreme Court to take up the case.