Federal Appeals court rules DOMA unconstitutional

[dbackjon]

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Thursday struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, finding the Clinton-era law violates the right to equal protection guaranteed by the Constitution.

DOMA defines marriage as between a man and a woman and says states don't have to recognize same-sex marriage.

It has the practical effect of sometimes requiring gay couples to pay more federal taxes.

In striking the law down, the Second Circuit sided with a 83-year-old Edith Windsor, who was forced to pay estate taxes after the death of her wife in 2009.



Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/second-c ... z29fSpwY2K" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[dbackjon]

Jacobs is not simply saying that DOMA imposes unique and unconstitutional burdens on gay couples, he is saying that any attempt by government to discriminate against gay people must have an “exceedingly persuasive” justification. This is the same very skeptical standard afforded to laws that discriminate against women. If Jacobs’ reasoning is adopted by the Supreme Court, it will be a sweeping victory for gay rights, likely causing state discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation to be virtually eliminated. And the fact that this decision came from such a conservative judge makes it all the more likely that DOMA will ultimately be struck down by the Supreme Court.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/1 ... ted-judge/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[dbackjon]

Very conservative judge wrote the opinion...


Thoughts from our constitutional experts?

[∞∞∞]

I'm sure it'll still head to the Supreme Court, but I doubt they won't agree with Judge Jacobs.

This one is pretty big step forward for LGBT rights, and human rights in general.

[Chizzang]

God is going to be very angry about this

[89Hen]

This one is pretty big step forward for LGBT rights

Is marriage a big issue for B's and T's?

[∞∞∞]

This one is pretty big step forward for LGBT rights

Is marriage a big issue for B's and T's?

Ah you know what I meant.

[CAA Flagship]

This one is pretty big step forward for LGBT rights

Is marriage a big issue for B's and T's?

What's a B?

[89Hen]

Is marriage a big issue for B's and T's?

What's a B?

[danefan]

Good luck arguing against this decision Conservatives. It is a masterpiece, IMO.

Full text here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/110433040/Windsor" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

DOMA was therefore an unprecedented intrusion into an area of traditional state regulation

As the district court found: “because the decision of whether same-sex couples can marry is left to the states, DOMA does not, strictly speaking, ‘preserve’ the institution of marriage as one between a man and a woman.”

But law (federal or state) is not concerned with holy matrimony. Government deals with marriage as a civil status--however fundamental--and New York has elected to extend that status to same-sex couples. A state may enforce and dissolve a couple’s marriage, but it cannot sanctify or bless it. For that, the pair must go next door.

[CID1990]

I don't really care.

Nor do I much care about any other narrowly focused single issue that it seems many voters are willing to throw the baby out with the bath water over.

[danefan]

In SCOTUS, I think this case will come down to whether homosexuals should be classified as a "quasi suspect" class. If they are, then any law allegedly infringing upon their rights will have to pass an "intermediate" scrutiny standard, which requires that a classification be “substantially related to an important government interest.” If they are not, then "the legislation [only needs to] bear a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental objective" which is a much lower standard.

The district court actually held that there was no rational relationship and never had to decide whether homosexuals are a quasi-suspect class. I don't think this SCOTUS would agree. I think the law passes muster on the rational basis test especially given the bi-partisan support for it when it was passed.

The Circuit Court held that homosexuals are a quasi-suspect class and the law should pass "intermediate" scrutiny which it failed.

The factors to determine whether a class is quasi-suspect are as follows:

A) whether the class has been historically “subjected to discrimination,”
B) whether the class has a defining characteristic that “frequently bears [a] relation to ability to perform or8contribute to society,”
C)9whether the class exhibits “obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics that define them as a discrete group;” and
D) whether the class is “a minority or politically powerless.”

The Circuit Court held:

In this case, all four factors justify heightened scrutiny:
A) homosexuals as a group have historically endured persecution and discrimination;
B) homosexuality has no relation to aptitude or ability to contribute to society;
C) homosexuals are a discernible group with non-obvious distinguishing characteristics, especially in the subset of those who enter same-sex marriages; and
D) the class remains a politically weakened minority.

[danefan]

I don't really care.

Nor do I much care about any other narrowly focused single issue that it seems many voters are willing to throw the baby out with the bath water over.

Agreed. The Federal government shouldn't care either.

[AZGrizFan]

I don't really care.

Nor do I much care about any other narrowly focused single issue that it seems many voters are willing to throw the baby out with the bath water over.

Yep. Great. Gays can marry. Meanwhile, the country is going off a cliff.

Fiddling while Rome burns. Perfect.

[HI54UNI]

Good step forward. Not so sure if the conservatives on the Supreme Court would disagree with this. The Iowa Supreme Court was pretty conservative too and they unanimously through out the ban on gay marriage in Iowa.

The Republican former speaker of the Iowa House of Rep. had a recent editorial saying that all the anti gay marriage groups told him several years ago they didn't think laws like DOMA would be upheld by the courts. He ripped on a couple of organizations in the state and their leaders that are using this issue to raise money and pay themselves big salaries.

[danefan]

I don't really care.

Nor do I much care about any other narrowly focused single issue that it seems many voters are willing to throw the baby out with the bath water over.

Yep. Great. Gays can marry. Meanwhile, the country is going off a cliff.

Fiddling while Rome burns. Perfect.

I suspect you'd find that many more people are willing to vote against a candidate solely because he is in FAVOR of gay marriage than those voting against him because he is OPPOSED to it.

Maybe not, but at least the people in my world see it that way.

If it were the other way around, I don't think there would be any gay marriage issues. They'd all have been decided already. Dems get off the hook for not supporting gay marriage. Republicans cannot survive a public support for gay marriage.

[∞∞∞]

I don't really care.

Nor do I much care about any other narrowly focused single issue that it seems many voters are willing to throw the baby out with the bath water over.

Yep. Great. Gays can marry. Meanwhile, the country is going off a cliff.

Fiddling while Rome burns. Perfect.

This is actually an important topic considering the Constitution focuses on rights more so than any other thing. The executive and legislative branches at the national, state, and local levels can focus on the economy while the judicial focuses on rights. The government is built to do more than one thing at once.

[death dealer]

Who fucking cares. I'd love to see the government deal with some important issues like the economy, not whether or not the demand for divorce lawyers is going to suddenly increase.

[dbackjon]

I don't really care.

Nor do I much care about any other narrowly focused single issue that it seems many voters are willing to throw the baby out with the bath water over.

Yep. Great. Gays can marry. Meanwhile, the country is going off a cliff.

Fiddling while Rome burns. Perfect.

For you, no biggie.

For me, important topic.

But, are you saying we can't multi-task? You want the Circuit Court to start writing economic law?

[89Hen]

For me, important topic.

Understatement of the year.

[Grizalltheway]

Yep. Great. Gays can marry. Meanwhile, the country is going off a cliff.

Fiddling while Rome burns. Perfect.

For you, no biggie.

For me, important topic.

But, are you saying we can't multi-task? You want the Circuit Court to start writing economic law?

Sure, as long as it's law that HE agrees with.

[Chizzang]

I don't really care.

Nor do I much care about any other narrowly focused single issue that it seems many voters are willing to throw the baby out with the bath water over.

Yep. Great. Gays can marry. Meanwhile, the country is going off a cliff.

Fiddling while Rome burns. Perfect.

The Stock Market..?
Booming
Why aren't these "creators" hiring like they said they would if the market turned around

[CitadelGrad]

Yep. Great. Gays can marry. Meanwhile, the country is going off a cliff.

Fiddling while Rome burns. Perfect.

The Stock Market..?
Booming
Why aren't these "creators" hiring like they said they would if the market turned around

The stock market is over-valued by close to 50% thanks to QE1 and QE2. It's a bubble and all bubbles burst.

[Chizzang]

The Stock Market..?
Booming
Why aren't these "creators" hiring like they said they would if the market turned around

The stock market is over-valued by close to 50% thanks to QE1 and QE2. It's a bubble and all bubbles burst.

So if it bursts on RMoney's watch...
What then?

Oh the agony the humanity

[CitadelGrad]

The stock market is over-valued by close to 50% thanks to QE1 and QE2. It's a bubble and all bubbles burst.

So if it bursts on RMoney's watch...
What then?

Oh the agony the humanity

You already know the answer to that question. Romney will be blamed for it and the media and Dems will still deify Obama and Bernanke.