Massachusetts Judge Rules DOMA Unconsitutional

[3113]

U.S. District Court Judge Jospeh Tauro...ruled this afternoon in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act violates the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. A companion decision in Massachusetts v. U.S. Dep't of Health and Human Services also was issued, with Tauro finding that DOMA also violates the Tenth Amendment and the Spending Clause of the Constitution.

From here.

One state at a time....

 

[3113]

Just to add, there is this further quote from the judgement that applies to Pro-prop-8 defenders as it was part of their closing arguments in that case (it really smashes those arguments!). Bold mine:

But even if Congress believed at the time of DOMA’s passage that children had the best chance at success if raised jointly by their biological mothers and fathers, a desire to encourage heterosexual couples to procreate and rear their own children more responsibly would not provide a rational basis for denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages. Such denial does nothing to promote stability in heterosexual parenting. Rather, it “prevent(s) children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure,” when afforded equal recognition under federal law.

Moreover, an interest in encouraging responsible procreation plainly cannot provide a rational basis upon which to exclude same-sex marriages from federal recognition because, as Justice Scalia pointed out in his dissent to Lawrence v. Texas, the ability to procreate is not now, nor has it ever been, a precondition to marriage in any state in the country.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

People become judges cuz they cant make a dime in private practice; so the bench rarely attracts talent or competence. Federal judges are nearly always politican hacks stooped from carrying water for every bootlegger, abortionist, and Bible thumper on the teevee.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Thank you, Judge Tauro!

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Prop 8 is dead, dead I say. Muwahahahahahaha!

 

[Katyusha]

Woot! This is good news indeed!

 

[Stella_Omega]

Prop 8 is dead, dead I say. Muwahahahahahaha!

D'ya think this ruling is what Judge Walker was waiting for before making his statement?

 

[voluptuary_manque]

D'ya think this ruling is what Judge Walker was waiting for before making his statement?

Walker is well-known as a very independent thinker. Most legal pundits were expecting him to just summarize all the arguments, rule in favor of the law and then watch the entire Ninth Circuit weigh in on appeals. From what I read in the press, that isn't the way he operates. He is expecting very good legal work from both sides and puts pressure on them to get it. IMO, the plaintiffs have all the cards and this ruling just underscores it. I mean, if Scalia, of all people, is on our side, how can we lose?

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Well, on this issue, as opposed to others I can think of, I must veer leftward a bit and agree with the courts. The Defense of Marriage Act was a disgraceful piece of legislation and should never have been signed (by President Bill Clinton, I might add).

Perhaps there is a small ray of hope yet for this world, but just a sliver.

 

[Boxlicker101]

From here.

One state at a time....

This isn't the Commonwealth of MA, which already has gay marriage. This is a federal judge. Personally, think it should be declared unconstitutional because of its dumb name. I never could figure out how it was defending anybody's marriage by preventing others from marrying the person of their choice.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Prop 8 isnt dead. What nonsense. When all of this liberal lunacy hits the Supremes the party is over forever.

 

[Stella_Omega]

"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." -- United States District Judge Joseph L. Tauro, decision in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, 2010-07-08

(underlined words are italicized in original, bolded are my own choices)

Click for PDF

 

[Boxlicker101]

"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." -- United States District Judge Joseph L. Tauro, decision in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, 2010-07-08

(underlined words are italicized in original, bolded are my own choices)

Click for PDF

I am puzzled about this, because I have always thought of "Equal Protection" as being covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, while the Fifth Amendment relates to the legal rights of an accused person.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I am puzzled about this, because I have always thought of "Equal Protection" as being covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, while the Fifth Amendment relates to the legal rights of an accused person. confused:

Same here, and there's a footnote in the PDF;

3
Though the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not contain an Equal Protection Clause, as the Fourteenth Amendment does, the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause includes an Equal Protection component. See Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 499 (1954).

Take a read, Box. here's a chance for you to get the information of what the judge said, directly from the source, without any possible misinterpretation from partisan reporters.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

So Prop 8 will come under attack from both the 14th Amendment and the Bill of Rights itself? Wow! Talk about calling for an air strike, bring on the B-52's . . .

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

There is no 14th Amendment equal protection issue; queers can get married but not to each other. It aint gonna happen cuz same sex marriage opens the door to every boy wanting to marry momma, polygamy, and group marriages.

STELLA is pretending to be Prince Pinocchio again, and wishing on stars to be the real boy she was meant to be!

 

[Boxlicker101]

So Prop 8 will come under attack from both the 14th Amendment and the Bill of Rights itself? Wow! Talk about calling for an air strike, bring on the B-52's . . .

I don't believe this has any Prop 8 ramifications, except indirectly. The judge acknowledged the states have the authority to establish standards or requirements for marriage, which CA has done with Prop 8. Then he says that, since the gay couples in MA are legally married, they have all the rights of any other married couples, which DOMA would deny them. This is a violation of the equal protection guaranteed by at least the Fourteenth Amendment. It would also apply to citizens of any state that does not outlaw gay marriage and to those couples in CA who were married just before Prop. 8 was passed.

As for Prop 8, that judge is certainly taking his time announcing his verdict.

 

[jlss35]

There is no 14th Amendment equal protection issue; queers can get married but not to each other. It aint gonna happen cuz same sex marriage opens the door to every boy wanting to marry momma, polygamy, and group marriages.

STELLA is pretending to be Prince Pinocchio again, and wishing on stars to be the real boy she was meant to be!

Right. Because gays marry we'll have incestuous marriages. Huh? How do you get from A to B on that one? I've heard the meme before, but never a coherent argument. Don't suppose I'll hear one now, either.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Right. Because gays marry we'll have incestuous marriages. Huh? How do you get from A to B on that one? I've heard the meme before, but never a coherent argument. Don't suppose I'll hear one now, either.

You people need to smarten up a wee bit. If YOU have a right to marry whomever you please, then so does everyone else, and your right opens the door to every permutation and combination of union. I mean, why draw the discrimination line at you?

I dont think the Supremes are gonna open Pandora's Box to release all the goofiness people are capable of.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Right. Because gays marry we'll have incestuous marriages. Huh? How do you get from A to B on that one? I've heard the meme before, but never a coherent argument. Don't suppose I'll hear one now, either.

No, because on this issue JBJ is incoherent. All the anti-gay marriage types are. There is no logical thought here, simply blind prejudice. It amazes me that people who demand that the government stay out of their business are so rabid to involve it in other people's. Marriage should be between the individuals involved, no one else. If you want to outlaw incestuous relationships, that's a no-brainer since there in an inherent avoidance of incest all through human history (except for Pharaonic Egypt, but that's a different issue altogether). Polygamy? It ain't the gov's bizness! Group marriage? So what? So long as all members consent, it ain't the gov's bizness. Enough of this drooling twaddle, already.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

VM likes the idea of colossal cluster fucks that no judge can ever untangle. I dont believe folks have a license to shit in the public punchbowl such as the queers insist they wanna do.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Right. Because gays marry we'll have incestuous marriages. Huh? How do you get from A to B on that one? I've heard the meme before, but never a coherent argument. Don't suppose I'll hear one now, either.

Jimmy is a troll, and hasn't said anything of substance in years.

Unfortunately, the forum owners feel that trolling is a form of free speech-- I highly recommend the firefox plugin in my signature as a remedy.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by jlss35
Right. Because gays marry we'll have incestuous marriages. Huh? How do you get from A to B on that one? I've heard the meme before, but never a coherent argument. Don't suppose I'll hear one now, either.

You people need to smarten up a wee bit. If YOU have a right to marry whomever you please, then so does everyone else, and your right opens the door to every permutation and combination of union. I mean, why draw the discrimination line at you?

I dont think the Supremes are gonna open Pandora's Box to release all the goofiness people are capable of.

The big difference between same sex marriage and incestuous marriage, or even sex, is that the latter will cause inbreeding, resulting in very undesireable recessive genes appearing. Tha former will not produce offspring, although one of the partners may already have a child or they may adopt or have one or both partners artificially inseminated. European nobility used to interbreed, which led to hemophilia and other hereditary conditions becoming common. The same thing would happen if incestuous marriages became legal, which is why it will not be permitted.

Of course, group marriages with all the participants willing may become legal eventually.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Jimmy is a troll, and hasn't said anything of substance in years.

Unfortunately, the forum owners feel that trolling is a form of free speech-- I highly recommend the firefox plugin in my signature as a remedy.

And STELLA seriously believes she'll become a real boy if she wishes on stars long enough. Magical thinking makes everything possible.

BOX

The day isnt far off when average Americans drag Usual Suspects out to the streets and hang them from lamp poles.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Box, please don't feed the troll.