Fed Judge Rules Fed Ban On Same Sex Marriage Uncostitutional

[UNHWildCats]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07 ... itutional/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[93henfan]

It's all about states' rights. Good call.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

It's all about states' rights. Good call.

he didn't give me any teaser script to hook me so I didn't go to the link but I agree with ya completely if that is what the ruling was.

[∞∞∞]

Glad to hear the 10th Amendment is still alive and kickin'! And a nice, albeit smaller victory for gay rights.

[BDKJMU]

Yep, this is a states rights issue. The fed govt has no business making any laws on it. Let the people of each state through the ballot box decide whether or not they want to allow gay marriage.

[andy7171]

I like the ruling.

I've set out my opinion on this subject before and dbj has effectively changed my stance over the last couple years.

As far as I am concerned, this is an question of semantics. The church doesn't recognise my brothers wedding, why should it be concerned with someone elses that doesn't occur in my church, regardless of faith (or sexual orientation)?

My opinion is this, the government has no reason to be involved in marriage, which is a religous sacrament. But it is and has been for many years. We can't undo those years. Just accept the difference between government marriage and religous marrigae, yourself.

.of course I understand the ramifacations of what this poses in countries outside of our religious freedoms, but, ... I can only handle so much drama.

If they are willing, let them be willing with the rest of us.

[citdog]

HURRAH for States' Rights! Now SC and her fellow Confederate States will not be forced to marry these mentally ill shcmeckle nuzzlers!

[CitadelGrad]

I'm all for states' rights, but isn't the real question whether the equal protection clause applies? Marriage, as sanctioned by the government, does bring economic and taxation benefits. It would seem to be a violation of the 14th Amendment to deny those benefits to gay couples. Still, this does seem to be a rare victory for states' rights, so I'll take it. Would still like to see the government get out of the marriage business.

[mainejeff]

This is such a conundrum for CONKS!

[93henfan]

This is such a conundrum for CONKS!

No doubt. It's almost like watching DONKS try to convince everyone how the war in Afghanistan needs some ramping up.

[CitadelGrad]

This is such a conundrum for CONKS!

Not just for Conks. The ban was enacted with a hell of a lot of Democrat votes. Hillary Clinton and Obama are both on record in support of the ban, as well.

[JoltinJoe]

Any attempt to federalize and nationalize social questions relating to morality (morality which varies greatly from region to region) is unwise -- and usually unconstitutional or inappropriate judicial activism.

[CID1990]

This is such a conundrum for CONKS!

Not just for Conks. The ban was enacted with a hell of a lot of Democrat votes. Hillary Clinton and Obama are both on record in support of the ban, as well.

Nothing throws a wet rag on hyperbole like an inconvenient truth.

[OL FU]

Well that is interesting. I think I agree with the ruling based on the little information I have in the article. But then on the other hand I wish most of the federal mandates to receive payments for individuals or states would go away. Not that the issue is comparable, but I don't even agree with the federally imposed speed limits on states to get highway money

[CSUBUCDAD]

If it is not one of the 18 things the Fed is constitutionally allowed/required to do, then they need to stay out of it all together.

[CitadelGrad]

And if a federal power is specified in the Constitution, the federal government should be forced to exercise that power. Two important powers that the federal government has refused to exercise are control of the border and the power to coin currency. It's time to repeal the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Kennedy tried it and got assassinated. Reagan talked about it and got shot.

[danefan]

Here's the ruling if you are so inclined:

http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/ ... cision.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And in Judge Tauro's own words, a summary of the reasoning:

In the wake of DOMA, it is only sexual orientation that differentiates a married couple entitled to federal marriage-based benefits from one not so entitled. And this court can conceive of no way in which such a difference might be relevant to the provision of the benefits at issue.

By premising eligibility for these benefits on marital status in the first instance, the federal government signals to this court that the relevant distinction to be drawn is between married individuals and unmarried individuals. To further divide the class of married individuals into those with spouses of the same sex and those with spouses of the opposite sex is to create a distinction without meaning. And where, as here, “there is no reason to believe that the disadvantaged class is different, in relevant respects” from a similarly situated class, this court may conclude that it is only irrational prejudice that motivates the challenged classification.

As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

[CID1990]

Here's the ruling if you are so inclined:

http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/ ... cision.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And in Judge Tauro's own words, a summary of the reasoning:

In the wake of DOMA, it is only sexual orientation that differentiates a married couple entitled to federal marriage-based benefits from one not so entitled. And this court can conceive of no way in which such a difference might be relevant to the provision of the benefits at issue.

By premising eligibility for these benefits on marital status in the first instance, the federal government signals to this court that the relevant distinction to be drawn is between married individuals and unmarried individuals. To further divide the class of married individuals into those with spouses of the same sex and those with spouses of the opposite sex is to create a distinction without meaning. And where, as here, “there is no reason to believe that the disadvantaged class is different, in relevant respects” from a similarly situated class, this court may conclude that it is only irrational prejudice that motivates the challenged classification.

As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

A plausible, well-reasoned decision, IMO.

But... states' rights advocates should not take this as some kind of nod to states' rights.

Any state law that is politically unpopular can be struck down by the high court, and I am pretty sure that gay marriage bans at the state level will not stand for long. (Unless that state decides to secede over fudgepackers getting married....)

[danefan]

Here's the ruling if you are so inclined:

http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/ ... cision.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And in Judge Tauro's own words, a summary of the reasoning:

A plausible, well-reasoned decision, IMO.

But... states' rights advocates should not take this as some kind of nod to states' rights.

Any state law that is politically unpopular can be struck down by the high court, and I am pretty sure that gay marriage bans at the state level will not stand for long. (Unless that state decides to secede over fudgepackers getting married....)

Agreed. This decision isn't really based on state's rights. I'm interested to see how this progresses through the Federal Appeals process.

[mainejeff]

If it is not one of the 18 things the Fed is constitutionally allowed/required to do, then they need to stay out of it all together.

Why is that? Because the Constitution is the new "Bible"??? Seems like CONKS want stuff set in stone FOREVER.......unless it doesn't benefit them or goes against their "beliefs" of course........

[CitadelGrad]

The Constitution is not the new Bible, but it is the law of the land. If you want to change it, there is a way to do it. It's called the constitutional amendment process. You can read about it. It's right there in the Constitution.

[mainejeff]

The Constitution is not the new Bible, but it is the law of the land. If you want to change it, there is a way to do it. It's called the constitutional amendment process. You can read about it. It's right there in the Constitution.

No sh*t Sherlock.

I'm just sick of these Constitutionalist fanatics that spout off about never changing anything in this 300 year old document.......until they hear about an Amendment that they'd LOVE to enact. Fvcking HYPOCRITES.

[CitadelGrad]

300 years old? Um, okay.

There's nothing hypocritical about supporting some proposed amendments and opposing others. I think it's called democracy or something like that.

[Chizzang]

300 years old? Um, okay.

There's nothing hypocritical about supporting some proposed amendments and opposing others. I think it's called democracy or something like that.

He's making valid reference to the amusing sliding scale used by those who tell us on one day how sacred the constitution is and then on the next day it's in dire need of an "update"

[CitadelGrad]

300 years old? Um, okay.

There's nothing hypocritical about supporting some proposed amendments and opposing others. I think it's called democracy or something like that.

He's making valid reference to the amusing sliding scale used by those who tell us on one day how sacred the constitution is and then on the next day it's in dire need of an "update"

I really don't see a contradiction. One can value the Constitution and acknowledge the need for it to be amended from time to time. After all, the founders anticipated the need for amendments and gave us a clear process for amending it. The objection that many of us have is that it is in effect often amended by the judiciary and even Congress without ratification by the states. One example is the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Congress in effect amended the Constitution by abdicating its responsibility for printing and issuing currency and transferring that responsibility to a privately owned corporation that is not accountable to the federal government. You have stated on more than one occasion that you would like to see the Federal Reserve abolished, so I'm pretty sure you understand my point.