Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Federal Court Rules DOMA Violates Equal Protection (cross post - breaking news)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » GLBT Donate to DU
 
FreeState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-08-10 03:47 PM
Original message
Federal Court Rules DOMA Violates Equal Protection (cross post - breaking news)
Source: Metro Weekly

U.S. District Court Judge Jospeh Tauro, appointed to the federal bench in 1972, ruled this afternoon in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, according to a tweet sent from Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, which brought the case. A companion decision in Massachusetts v. U.S. Dep't of Health and Human Services also was issued, according to a GLAD news advisort

Section 3 of DOMA defines "marriage" and "spouse" at the federal level as constituting only opposite-sex couples. It reads:

`In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.'.

More will be forthcoming ...

Read more: http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2010/07/federal-court-rules-doma-viola.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-08-10 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
1. OOOOMMGGGGG
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreeState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-08-10 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. The best part - the Judge was appointed by Nixon and a GOP Governor :) n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-08-10 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. Enumerated powers
It's how a conservative judge should rule on the issue if politics and/or personal bias is removed from the decision.

I'm not sure that the decision will survive appeals... but the question is whether the current administration will appeal in the first place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katandmoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-08-10 04:06 PM
Response to Original message
3. K&R!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
foxfeet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-08-10 04:06 PM
Response to Original message
4. Woot!
:woohoo:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mitchtv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-08-10 04:06 PM
Response to Original message
5. here we go--------
BTW fuck you Linda Lingle
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
racaulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-08-10 04:14 PM
Response to Original message
6. Fantastic!!!
:woohoo:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShadowLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-08-10 05:53 PM
Response to Original message
7. Awesome, especially considering who appointed the judge
This is a good early victory, but we all know it'll be appealed farther, probably to the Supreme Court.

But still, for a Nixon judge to rule this way, it's a big victory, even if he was from the Massachusetts area, since Nixon wasn't exactly a hero on civil rights, quite the opposite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tbyg52 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-08-10 08:03 PM
Response to Original message
8. This makes me very happy.
:woohoo:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JulieKatz Donating Member (23 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-08-10 09:10 PM
Response to Original message
10. Finally Some Good News n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nickinSTL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-08-10 09:33 PM
Response to Original message
11. my question is...will the current Justice Dept appeal?
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-09-10 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. Almost certainly, and we want them to.
First off, the JD basically has to, as it's their job to defend federal law and the federal government from lawsuits.

Second, if it doesn't get taken to the SCOTUS and upheld there, then the ruling ONLY applies to Massachusetts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RetiredTrotskyite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-08-10 11:03 PM
Response to Original message
12. YAY!
:bounce: :toast: :party: :grouphug: :woohoo: :applause: :patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 03:11 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » GLBT Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC