Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

[Hissyspit]

Source: Associated Press

Federal gay marriage ban is ruled unconstitutional

By DENISE LAVOIE, AP Legal Affairs Writer – 2 hrs 37 mins ago
BOSTON – The federal law banning gay marriage is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define the institution and therefore denies married gay couples some federal benefits, a federal judge ruled Thursday in Boston.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro ruled in favor of gay couples' rights in two separate challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, a 1996 law that the Obama administration has argued for repealing. The rulings apply to Massachusetts but could have broader implications if they're upheld on appeal.

The state had argued the law denied benefits such as Medicaid to gay married couples in Massachusetts, where same-sex unions have been legal since 2004. Tauro agreed and said the act forces Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens in order to be eligible for federal funding in federal-state partnerships.

The act "plainly encroaches" upon the right of the state to determine marriage, Tauro said in his ruling on a lawsuit filed by state Attorney General Martha Coakley. In a ruling in a separate case filed by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, Tauro ruled the act violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. "Congress undertook this classification for the one purpose that lies entirely outside of legislative bounds, to disadvantage a group of which it disapproves. And such a classification the Constitution clearly will not permit," Tauro wrote.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100708/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage_benefits

[tomm2thumbs]

1. ...cue GOP fright-ads for the November election

never let a good boogieman go to waste

[Oldtimeralso]

11. Why GOP Fright-ads?

Tauro remains the longest-serving active judge appointed by Nixon.

[AtheistCrusader]

12. Doesn't matter. This issue will now take center stage for the republicans to drum up votes.

I am astounded and heartened by that judge. He should be nominated to the SC. Hot damn, justice lives yet!

[AlbertCat]

38. Doesn't matter. This issue will now take center stage for the republicans to drum up votes.

Even though the ruling upholds one of the GOP's most cherished causes...state's rights.


I wish the government would get out of the marriage business altogether. Every person, regardless of genders or preferences, should only be able to get a "domestic partnership" from the government, and then they and their children are "legal". The marriage part is some kind of ceremony that the couple may choose or not choose to have.... at the church or institution that they want. Therefore, only domestic partnerships have any legal status and the marriage part is up to the couple after that and has no bearing on the legalities of the partnership.

So churches that don't want to marry gays don't have to, and those that do, can. The only thing the state can issue is a legal domestic partnership.... religion is out of the equation as far as the state is concerned.... as it should be with the separation of church and state.

[krispos42]

49. Because this means that the h-h-h-HOMOsexuals will be forcing pre-schoolers...

...into gay indocrination camps tommorow, of course.


Just ask the Talibornagain.

[mikesm]

47. Mark my words... The WH will appeal this!

Politically, they will not want to take the heat for letting this die. They care more about votes than principal, and have done nothing using their "bully pulpit" about DOMA before so they could have the flexibility to support it in case this very thing happened.

[MadMaddie]

66. I don't know if that's true

I am beginning to think that this is exactly what the administration wanted. They had to have the courts start looking at these draconian laws and actually vetting them against the Constitution.

If President Obama tried to overturn it withought the court it would have been a disaster.

[Robb]

2. Damn, but that's good news.

K&R.

[Hissyspit]

3. When it gets to SCOTUS, the right-wing bigots, including idiot Shrub's appointees,

will come up with some twisted logic for violating the equal protection clause.

Sometimes I swear we're back in the 19th century.

[TheWraith]

6. I would say that's not very likely.

In fact, this stands a very good chance of being upheld if it makes it to the SCOTUS any time soon. This is nearly the same court that overturned sodomy laws in 2003 in Lawrence vs. Texas.

[Hissyspit]

7. Hope you are correct.

[Q3JR4]

16. I agree with you,

it will come down to a vote by Anthony Kennedy (who voted with the majority to strike down state sodomy laws in the Lawrence v. Texas case).

Based on that ruling I believe that we will at least get civil unions out of the supremes if not full on marriage rights.

Q3JR4.

[TheWraith]

34. I don't think civil unions are an option here.

Remember, this isn't going to be a case on whether gay people deserve to marry (via equal protection or anything else), it's going to be on the constitutionality of DOMA. So the good outcome for us is that DOMA gets struck down, and whether you can get married is still a state-by-state matter--but the federal government recognizes you as married, and it's portable to other states. And people would be able to travel to a state where it was legal, get married, then go home and it still be binding.

Anyway, Kennedy is a pretty good justice despite a few bad decisions (Bush v. Gore being the worst)--he usually comes down on the constitutionally correct side of an issue, and he's been good on choice, protection of civil liberties, and so forth, not so good on the environment.

[jberryhill]

9. Before it gets to SCOTUS, Obama will personally be ripped a new orifice here at DU

I'm betting that most DUers, by a wide margin DO NOT want this case taken to a higher level, and basically want to screw Iowa LGBT couples out of what LGBT couples in Massachusetts - and Massachusetts only - just won.

I've already been called a bigot here, for wanting this result to have national effect.

Bet on it.

[ooglymoogly]

46. Putting all your eggs in that basket will

only get you scrambled eggs, provided you have the heat..

[Alpha Numeric Wanda]

10. SCOTUS is (or can be)...

... very unpredictable!

[davidinalameda]

28. the only way it gets to SCOTUS is if the DOJ appeals

[TheWraith]

4. I knew that this lawsuit had legs!

Very good news.

[nickinSTL]

5. Excellent

will the Obama Administration appeal and try to maintain DOMA?

[jberryhill]

8. How do you suggest this case get to the Supreme Court?

Read the part of the article which is in bold print above.

[TheWraith]

14. Point one, the federal government is legally obligated to defend federal law.

DOMA is a federal law. They're obligated to defend it if sued.

Second point is that if the federal government doesn't appeal, than ONLY gay couples married in Massachusetts can enjoy federal benefits.

[polmaven]

19. Thank you for bringing some sanity to this.

The defense of the suit is NOT a sign that the president is a homophobic bigot. The administration, as you point out, is legally obligated to defend federal law, and an appeal may actually be a good thing in that it will then be extended to the entire country.

It will not mean, of course, that same sex marriage will be legal in every state, but Federal benefits will have to be extended to legally married gay couples throughout the country.

[zanana1]

21. The president is in another no-win situation.

That being said, I'd rather he battle with the Right Wing and not the people who voted him into office. I'm heterosexual and supposedly I don't have a dog in this fight, but I'm a big fan of fairness and DOMA has to go.

[polmaven]

30. yes, he is in a no win place.

I, too, am heterosexual, but I think we all do have a dog in the fight, as we are human beings wanting human rights for everyone. I agree with the post that says this really SHOULD go to SCOTUS because that is the only way to make it applicable to all states, not just Massachusetts.

[Xicano]

48. "The administration, as you point out, is legally obligated to defend federal law."

The administration is legally obligated to defend the Constitution of the United States and when any legislative act is at odds with the Constitution the administration is obligated to defend the Constitution because it is the supreme law of the land over any other law. Marbury vs Madison should have taught you that. I am just reminding you.


Peace,
Xicano

[jberryhill]

61. Yes, the other thing pointed out by Marbury v. Madison

Is that the Supreme Court gets the last word.

Not a district court.

District courts can and do come to different conclusions on the same question. That's why appeals from them ultimately funnel to a single Supreme Court.

This ruling is binding in Massachusetts. It is not binding in Iowa.

[Politicub]

64. The requirement to defend a bigoted law is no excuse

The Obama administration isn't made of automatons although they act like it sometimes. It's made of people who can make choices.

And if you're seriously saying that the justice department doesn't have a choice to not defend or mount a milquetoast defense, the institution is useless -- at least as it applies to my liberty.

It is beyond the pale to defend bigotry. And I don't have to shut up and sit in the corner about it just because of this "requirement."

[TheWraith]

68. From all accounts, they DID mount a "milquetoast defense."

Which has some people already saying that the Obama administration took a fall on this one.

[ruggerson]

22. Once a Federal Judge has ruled a statute unconstitutional

the DOJ does not have to keep defending it. This judge did just that - on summary judgement, no less.

[polmaven]

31. But the decision applies only to MA...

It needs to go further in order to make it applicable to every state.

[Heidi]

13. Recommended.

:kick:

[Rhiannon12866]

15. K&R! Good news!

Thanks for posting this... :applause:

[florida08]

17. good ruling

The states should have the legal right to determine and define marriage and civil unions for it's citizens especially when federal law doesn't. There are partners who have been denied visitation rights when their mate is in ICU. That shouldn't happen to anyone.

Also denying SS to people who have been together for decades shouldn't exist either. People are too hung up on the wrong aspects.
"No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

People are not created all the same but they're darn well entitled to being treated the same under the laws of the country according to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights says so.

[keepCAblue]

50. No, the states SHOULD NOT have that right.

If states did have the absolute right to define marriage, then mixed race marriages would still be illegal in a number of states. It took a Supreme Court ruling to override the racist state marriage laws in this country once upon a time, and it will take another SCOTUS ruling to overturn all the discriminatory state-enacted DOMA laws which presently ban same-sex marriage. Furthermore, as long as there are federal laws and benefits which are impacted by one's marital status, there must be a sweeping mandate at the federal level regarding the legality and legitimacy of same-sex marriages. What we have now is effectively a "marriage, as defined at the state level" and it has created a complete mess for those who are legally married in one state, but not in a whole host of others. Allowing individual states to define marriage wrt GLBTQ citizens, which is currently the case, has resulted in a majority of states BANNING same-sex marriage, be it by legislation or at the ballot box. Your statement that "states should have the legal right to determine and define marriage and civil unions" directly conflicts with your statement that "people...darn well entitled to being treated the same under the laws of the country according to the constitution. The Bill of Rights says so." The U.S. Constitution always usurps the constitution of individual states, which is why, when the SCOTUS decision in Loving v. Virginia came down, it immediately invalidated the anti-miscegenation laws still in effect in several states -- and this is precisely what will be required to ensure full citizenship and social equality to GLBTQ Americans, regardless of the state they live in.

What is most important and key to a future SCOTUS win in Judge Tauro's double ruling yesterday is not that he found section 3 violates individual states' rights, but that he found it violates the federal constitutional guarantee of equal protection. It is the latter finding, not the former, which will form the heart and substance of the Prop 8 case when it is argued before the SCOTUS.

[jberryhill]

58. Two points you are missing

1. The question of whom states CAN marry and whom states CAN'T marry, are not the same question. Superficially, they seem to be. States have an absolute right to say who IS married. States cannot say who CAN'T get married with the same authority, because they have to satisfy the 14th amendment guarantee of equal protection which, thus far, has extended only to heterosexuals. In other words, they must permit inter-racial marriages, but they can differ on things like age, first cousins (New York, yes; Ohio, no) and other distinctions.

2. The equal protection claim here was between two classes of people who are ALREADY MARRIED under state law. This section of DOMA dealt with denial of federal benefits to a class of MARRIED people. What the court said here was that it violates equal protection to prefer one group of MARRIED people over another group of MARRIED people. The point being that if a state says two people ARE MARRIED, then the federal government cannot question that state assertion of status.

Maybe I can say it more simply.

If State X says "these two people ARE married", the federal government cannot question it. The Supreme Court is unlikely to disagree with that.

If State X says "these two people cannot become married", then our position is that it is a constitutional violation. Thus far, it is not clear the Supreme Court would agree with us.

To recap - states do not have an absolute right to say who is allowed to become married. States do have an absolute right to say that people who are already married ARE married.

There is no reason to fear the assertion of state sovereignty inherent in this decision.

[keepCAblue]

67. I agree with you 100%. I wasn't addressing the ruling but rather...

the above poster who said, "The states should have the legal right to determine and define marriage and civil unions for it's citizens."

This statement is wide open, leaving states to define marriage any way they choose, including definitions that are designed to exclude specific classes of citizens from civil marriage.

[Sciguy]

18. Please, please, please, let it hold up!

I really hope Tauro's ruling stands. FOREVER.

[Soylent Brice]

20. K&R

[sellitman]

23. Finally some good news on this front.

Sad that we even have to defend Gay Marriage at all but if we do then this is a great event.

[valerief]

24. SCOTUS will kill this, because SCOTUS hates Americans. nt

[racaulk]

25. K&R!!!

:woohoo:

[Odin2005]

26. K&R

[MissMillie]

27. I've checked some conservative blogs this morning

you wouldn't believe how utterly ignorant those folks are of things like "constitutionality"

scary

[Rozlee]

36. Oh, yeah, I've been to a few myself. The old sex-with-ducks crew is frothing at the mouth

And the moment I read this, I dived for the phone to get into a "discussion" about it with my pre-requisite family winger, i.e. my sister--I live to do this shit--who predictictably told me about how we just wanted to destroy marriage and how our children would turn into flamers. When I pointed out that the six children we had between us had the statistical anomaly of having happy marriages and that I would bet her none of them would fly out screaming into the night to sacrifice their firstborn to Satan, burn the flag and hump the nearest cat, she just hung up on me. I guess I'll be kissing ass to make up to her for the next week because I'm a liberal and conservatives have a way of re-writing history. She'll tell the rest of the family I told her that I was going to become a lesbian, sacrifice my firstborn, burn the flag and hump the nearest cat.

[Ozymanithrax]

29. The problem with this is that it keeps the right to deny marriages to gays...

in the hands of the individual states rather than make marriage a right that all citizens share.

It is good news, but it isn't recognition that there is an individual right to marry the person of your choosing.

[NewJeffCT]

33. Agreed, it's only a baby step when we need leaps & bounds

However, with all the bad news there has been recently on so many fronts, even a glimmer of hope is welcome.

[Ozymanithrax]

35. As long as people realize that it is a baby step, and not time to mambo, I'm fine. nt/

[Rosa Luxemburg]

65. yes I agree

a huge step forward

[jberryhill]

59. The decision is not about whether anyone can become married

The decision is about whether the federal government must recognize people who are ALREADY married under the law of their state.

[NewJeffCT]

32. Judge Tauro is a Republican appointee as well

Though, it was Richard Nixon who appointed him, and Nixon looks like a liberal compared to the modern Republic Party.

[liberation]

37. At this point Nixon looks like a liberal compared to most "New Dems" too.

frightening how much to the right the political discourse in this country was coerced into turning.

[nightrain]

39. that's fabulous news, hope it stands........

[BEZERKO]

40. Hopefully it cost the state a fortune to persue this case!

[johnaries]

41. Wait - right ruling, but WRONG reason!

This is not a "States-rights" issue, this is a Civil Rights issue!

I don't want to throw water on the fire, but this ruling opens up the rights of individual States to ban Gay marriage. But the Federal Constitution should override States Rights in this case, because banning anyone from marrying the person that they love is clearly a violation of Civil Rights.

Am I wrong here? :shrug:

[NewJeffCT]

42. The Constitution should over-ride

but, who knows how the regressive activists on the SCotUS would rule on that case, as most of them hate the equal protection clause.

[Dappleganger]

45. +100000

[keepCAblue]

52. Tauro made TWO rulings yesterday...

In the first suit, Tauro ruled that Section 3 violates states' rights.

In the second, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, Tauro ruled that Section 3 violates the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

It is the Gill ruling that will likely be invoked in any SSM cases brought before the SCOTUS (e.g. Prop 8), wherein it will be argued that state-enacted same-sex marriage bans are in violation of equal protection, as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Like the Loving v. Virginia decision which invalidated all state-enacted anti-miscegenation laws, a SCOTUS win would would invalidate all state-enacted SSM bans.

[jberryhill]

60. Yes, you are wrong

The state power in question is the state right to say "these two people ARE married".

It was not about the state power to grant or deny anyone the right to BECOME married.

The equal protection claim in question was about applying equal protection to two groups of MARRIED people.

The ruling is not about whether any two single people can or should be able to get married in the first place.

Yes, if the state says you are married, you are married. The federal government can't say "no you are not" if the state says you are.

That's not even ABOUT the question of "who can or should be able to become married", it was simply about equal recognition of existing lawful marriages.

[and-justice-for-all]

43. It is extremely Unconstitutional...nt

[24601]

44. I just find it amusing that you have the "Bush/Uncle Dick" graphic

when DOMA was signed into law by Bill Clinton.

[keepCAblue]

53. Clinton has since admitted his error and now supports SSM. Bush never will.

It was Bush who supported amending the U.S. constitution to define marriage as "one man, one woman." Bush has not changed his mind on this, and likely never will.

Clinton had his many, many faults, but to compare Clinton and Bush on this issue, in the context of who they are TODAY is hardly fair.

[24601]

55. Of course Clinton now says that but in reality, he'd sign it again for

political advantage. The DLC gang brought all sorts of "great" new things, DOMA & DADT were just two he signed. Oh, yes, there was that welfare "reform", etc, etc, etc.

Someone convince me he wouldn't do it all over it he thought it would put Hillary in the WH. Please convince me, I need a good laugh today.

[jberryhill]

62. The purpose of DOMA was to head off the effort for a constitutional amendment /nt

[Hissyspit]

56. I've had that graphic for years. It doesn't really have anything to do with

individual posts.
That said, Bush was ready to make banning of gay marriage Constitutionally permanent.

[polmaven]

69. You would have preferred

a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as being between "one man and one woman"? That is what would have come if President Clinton had not agreed to DOMA at the time.

Now, these many years later, the country's opinions are "evolving", if you will, as the younger generation is growing up, and have very different opinions of gay marriage, partially because they have seen, with the example of MA, that gay marriage is not the threat that was warned. A Constitutional Amendment is much less likely.

[Timbuk3]

51. In honor of the ruling

Betty Bowers, America's best Christian, Explains Traditional Marriage to Everyone Else

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw

[pleah]

54. K&R

[roamer65]

57. This ruling is a mixed bag.

While I am glad to hear that DOMA could be struck down, handing off the determination to the states could make matters much worse. We'll end up with a patchwork of laws from one of the spectrum to the other.

Much like slavery in 1860.

[jberryhill]

63. Or cousin marriage today /nt

[Unvanguard]

70. States have always controlled who can and cannot get married.

And until the passage of DOMA, the federal government always deferred to their judgment. That was true even when there have been substantial differences between the states about age of eligibility, interracial marriage, degree of relation, and so forth. No great harm is done by this policy.

In any case, insofar as your post is a rejection of states' constitutional right to determine what marriage constitutes for themselves, that ship sailed a long time ago, and insofar as it is a rejection of the invalidation of the government's attempt to federalize marriage standards in DOMA particularly, crucial to the ruling in this case was its violation of equal protection guarantees.