HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Boston court: US gay marr...

Thu May 31, 2012, 10:25 AM

Boston court: US gay marriage law (DOMA) unconstitutional

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

(05-31) 07:19 PDT BOSTON (AP) --

An appeals court ruled Thursday that a law that denies a host of federal benefits to gay married couples is unconstitutional.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston said the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, discriminates against gay couples.

The law was passed in 1996 at a time when it appeared Hawaii would legalize gay marriage. Since then, many states have instituted their own bans on gay marriage, while eight states have approved it, led by Massachusetts in 2004.

The appeals court agreed with a lower court judge who ruled in 2010 that the law is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define marriage and denies married gay couples federal benefits given to heterosexual married couples, including the ability to file joint tax returns.





Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2012/05/31/national/a071419D60.DTL



BREAKING: TWO REPUBLICAN JUDGES DECLARE DOMA UNCONSTITUTIONAL | A three judge panel of The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit just handed down a decision declaring the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. Notably, the panel included Judges Juan Torruella and Michael Boudin, both of whom are Republican appointees. Judge Boudin, who authored the opinion, is one of the most highly regarded judges in the country; he frequently sends his former law clerks to clerk for Supreme Court justices. More analysis of his opinion will follow shortly.
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/10-2204P-01A.pdf
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/05/31/492859/breaking-two-republican-judges-declare-doma-unconstitutional/

another link:
http://www.startribune.com/nation/155926735.html

22 replies, 6475 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 22 replies Author Time Post
Reply Boston court: US gay marriage law (DOMA) unconstitutional (Original post)
kpete May 2012 OP
HockeyMom May 2012 #1
Fearless May 2012 #3
frazzled May 2012 #8
ruggerson May 2012 #20
Happyhippychick May 2012 #2
OVERPAID01 May 2012 #12
Happyhippychick May 2012 #21
mahatmakanejeeves May 2012 #4
RKP5637 May 2012 #5
qb May 2012 #6
OVERPAID01 May 2012 #11
RKP5637 May 2012 #17
morningfog May 2012 #13
brooklynite May 2012 #7
frazzled May 2012 #9
OVERPAID01 May 2012 #10
Marrah_G May 2012 #16
msanthrope May 2012 #14
Marrah_G May 2012 #15
countryjake May 2012 #18
MissMillie May 2012 #19
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2012 #22

Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2012, 10:41 AM

1. If the SC ruled DOMA unconstitutional.

wouldn't that also strike down all those state bans on gay marriage? Just like the states interracial marriage bans, and even states sodomy laws?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HockeyMom (Reply #1)

Thu May 31, 2012, 10:52 AM

3. If the SJC did, then yes it could.

There are ways they can cop out on it though. We'll see...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HockeyMom (Reply #1)

Thu May 31, 2012, 12:39 PM

8. Short answer: no. That is a different case

This decision only deems unconstitutional the provision in the DOMA law that prohibits the federal government from granting the federal benefits of marriage (e.g., filing a joint federal tax return) to couples who were LEGALLY married in a state that permits same sex marriages.

The rest is still up for grabs. To wit:

The court didn't rule on the law's more politically combustible provision, which said states without same-sex marriage cannot be forced to recognize gay unions performed in states where it's legal. It also wasn't asked to address whether gay couples have a constitutional right to marry.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/31/doma-unconstitutional-ruling-appeals-court-boston_n_1559031.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HockeyMom (Reply #1)

Thu May 31, 2012, 08:43 PM

20. No

Last edited Thu May 31, 2012, 09:54 PM - Edit history (1)

What it would do is invalidate one part of DOMA, obviously, which would mean:

Any couple that is married in a state where such marriages are legal, would immediately receive all the FEDERAL rights and benefits and responsibilities that accrue from marriage.

On edit: after reading the ruling, it would appear to be fairly narrow in that it doesn't strike down the other section of DOMA, having to do with the full faith and credit clause.

However, there is also the chance that Justice Kennedy could use this case or the prop 8 case to team up with the liberal wing and craft a broad based Loving-like decision which would have the remedies you mention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2012, 10:49 AM

2. Huge news ladies and gentlemen, huge news.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Happyhippychick (Reply #2)

Thu May 31, 2012, 12:54 PM

12. I love your quote, really direct and profound.

 

You made me smile today!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OVERPAID01 (Reply #12)

Thu May 31, 2012, 09:30 PM

21. Thank you, that was kind to say!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2012, 10:58 AM

4. Another nail in the coffin.

How many more nails can that coffin take before there's nothing left?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2012, 11:00 AM

5. Excellent!!! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2012, 11:06 AM

6. I bet the wingnuts on the SC are dreading the contortions they'll be in

while trying to pretend bigotry is constitutional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to qb (Reply #6)

Thu May 31, 2012, 12:50 PM

11. Read on some freeper blog...

 

That the Supreme Court should use the bible as a means on the ruling of the Doma law...thought you couldn't quote the bible when ruling on legal issues. The whole separation of church and state thing. Any thoughts?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OVERPAID01 (Reply #11)

Thu May 31, 2012, 03:05 PM

17. If the bigots, haters and racists in this country can make life

miserable they will relentlessly seize every opportunity. Some of these damn fools need to review the fact we have separation of church and state and with damn good reason. Many religions are packed with mindless fools with bigoted narrow minded ways, throwbacks to the dark ages.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to qb (Reply #6)

Thu May 31, 2012, 12:56 PM

13. The wingnuts will be writing the dissent and I expect it to

 

be based on a rational basis test. The marriage equality advocates even conceded we would lose under that analysis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2012, 11:35 AM

7. ...and another day that Mitt Romney won't get to focus on the economy...

...one suspects he'll be asked a lot about his pledge to impose a Constitutional Amendment ban.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2012, 12:40 PM

9. Yay; inevitable.

The dominoes are tumbling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2012, 12:47 PM

10. If the clowns in Washington D.C. ...

 

Decide to make this a constitutional amendment, wouldn't this make the constitution unconstitutional as well? Just a thought!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OVERPAID01 (Reply #10)

Thu May 31, 2012, 01:18 PM

16. It would make it part of the constitution

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2012, 01:16 PM

14. Wow. Boudin's 10th A analysis should be quite a

 

rrad. This is a good day!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2012, 01:17 PM

15. ~cheer~

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2012, 04:02 PM

18. K&R!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu May 31, 2012, 05:37 PM

19. I imagine that the title of the thread is the title of the story

But this isn't a Boston court. It's a Federal Court in Boston.

Great day in the morning!!!! Another step towards marriage equality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Jun 1, 2012, 01:30 AM

22. K&R. Three cheers for fairness and the Fourteenth Amendment!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread