Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Another Federal Judge Rules Defense of Marriage Act Unconstitutional
KQED (Bay Area/CA) ^ | May 25, 2012 | News Staff and Wires

Posted on 05/25/2012 10:33:26 AM PDT by kevcol

(Bay City News) A federal judge ruled in Oakland that the state's public-employee pension system must make long-term care insurance equally available to same-sex spouses and partners.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken said a provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is unconstitutional to the extent that it limits same-sex spouses of state workers in obtaining the insurance.
.
.
Wilken said the DOMA ban violated the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal treatment. She wrote that there was no proof the DOMA provision was "rationally related to a legitimate government interest."
.
.
In today's ruling, Wilken also struck down a U.S. Internal Revenue Service law to the extent that it bars domestic partners from enrolling in the long-term care insurance plan offered by CalPERS.

(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.kqed.org ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: activistjudges; doma; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; romney; romney4nytimes; romneyagenda; romneymarriage; romneyvsclerks; romneyvsconstitution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last


BJ Clinton appointment. [check]
J.D. from the UC Berkeley School of Law [check]
'National Lawyers Guild' member - a leftist "shadow" ABA [check]
Legal aid and public defender in SF [check]
1 posted on 05/25/2012 10:33:37 AM PDT by kevcol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kevcol

That’s a man, baby!


2 posted on 05/25/2012 10:36:22 AM PDT by Arm_Bears (Journalists first; then lawyers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevcol

Dyke [Check]


3 posted on 05/25/2012 10:36:54 AM PDT by WashingtonSource
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevcol

This is going to keep happening till a defense of marriage amendment to the Constitution is passed.


4 posted on 05/25/2012 10:38:15 AM PDT by Deb (Beat him, strip him and bring him to my tent!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deb

Yep


5 posted on 05/25/2012 10:44:06 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kevcol

Oh My Gawd: My eyes my eyes.

I assumed before seeing the picture that she was a Dyke.
The Picture pretty much confirms it.

Shopping for Judges is becoming a popular pastime for weird causes.


6 posted on 05/25/2012 10:45:09 AM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevcol

BJ Clinton appointment. [check]
J.D. from the UC Berkeley School of Law [check]
‘National Lawyers Guild’ member - a leftist “shadow” ABA [check]
Legal aid and public defender in SF [check]

Hillary Clinton appointment. [check]
J.D. from the UC Berkeley School of Law [check]
‘National Lawyers Guild’ member - a leftist “shadow” ABA [check]
Legal aid and public defender in SF [check]

Fixed it


7 posted on 05/25/2012 10:45:35 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevcol
Looks like “Her Honor” has her licker license.
8 posted on 05/25/2012 10:46:03 AM PDT by 4yearlurker (No matter who you elect,the government eventually gets in.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevcol

She wrote that there was no proof the DOMA provision was “rationally related to a legitimate government interest.”
.
The proof is there...you just refuse to acknowlege it.

Having children raised in a heterosexual modeled family IS the government interest.


9 posted on 05/25/2012 10:49:35 AM PDT by Adder (Da bro has GOT to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Adder

The government today is more interested in placing somebody else’s kids in homes like the one this judge rules.


10 posted on 05/25/2012 10:51:15 AM PDT by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: kevcol

Logically, then, 3 people can marry, or even 100. Next, lawsuits for discriminating against polygamy.

If marriage is not one man and one woman, if marriage has no legal benefit, then the Communists have won and have successfully torn down the moral fabric of this nation.


11 posted on 05/25/2012 10:56:05 AM PDT by CodeToad (Homosexuals are homophobes. They insist on being called 'gay' instead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevcol
judge shopping and what constitution is this reading as it sure as hell is not the American one?

We all have the same right, they can marry the opposite sex as we can, we cannot marry the same sex as they cannot and no where in the constitution does it state homosexual can marry.

Also if they want o redefine marriage then include all, yes ALL kinds of marriage not just that kind they want based on what turns them on.

About love, no I love my daughter and dog but feel no need to marry them or have sex with them.

Ever remember when they used to say they wanted civil unions and it was their private life, what a crock of crap that was as they used this and are using marriage in a bigger agenda and if the dopes out there on our side cannot see the bigger picture here and how they want the laws to let men have sex with boys then they had better wake up

12 posted on 05/25/2012 11:07:28 AM PDT by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

nail on head the likes of Megyn Kelly has bene harpong on about marriage equality , well her guests have and she never questions them but if they want to use that term then they should back all sorts of marriage not just their kind of marriage and it’s about time our side started saying this.

We should not have given them civil unions years ago as giving them steps in their agenda has helped them further their bigger agenda.

see my tagline please


13 posted on 05/25/2012 11:11:28 AM PDT by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Deb
This is going to keep happening till a defense of marriage amendment to the Constitution is passed.

Absolutely. Chances of that happening with Obama or Romney in office? Zero.
14 posted on 05/25/2012 11:13:00 AM PDT by Antoninus (Sorry, gone rogue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Adder

> Having children raised in a heterosexual modeled family IS the government interest.

Yep.

It is also in the state interest to have males restrained by female companions, to have women protected and nurtured by a male provider and protector, to have women protected from the whims of men, to have stable, long-term households, to have large numbers of children, and to have these children turn out to be healthy.

We would be well-served as a nation to stop and consider why the nation-state and civilized societies created the odd institution of marriage in the first place, and placed the limitations and demands on it that it did.

To put it another way, we should ask ourselves why the state created a special (”odd”) form of contract, calling it “marriage,” and imposed on it some particular burdens but also allowed it special privileges. And, it should be noted, made THIRD PARTIES subject to the contract, compelling them to recognize it and give it considerations not given to singular individuals.

Note that any two parties can form a contract between themselves. In this contract, they can promise to be loving, devoted, share wealth, etc. This is perfectly legal and proper today, right now.

We should take note of how a marriage is a special form of this contract.

For that matter, note that any three or twelve or 157 parties can form a contract amongst themselves. These parties can be all male, or all female, or any combination thereof. They can promise to each other to be loving, devoted, etc.

Why didn’t the state allow this in the terms of what it calls marriage? Why didn’t it allow male-male marriages, or female-female-female-male-female marriages?

The state did not create marriage as an act of favor and mushiness towards the loving couple making a commitment to each other.

It did so to compel the male to behave, in return for somewhat regular sex and regular companionship. It did so to protect females from powerful males and husbands. It did so because the state want large numbers of children produced. It demanded that marriages be permanent so that women were protected and nourished, men didn’t run wild, and children were not only plentiful but healthy. And, btw, with these children the state could grow economically and defend itself militarily.

The polygamous marriage does not accomplish these objectives. The same gender marriage does not accomplish these objectives. The adult-child marriage does not accomplish these objectives.


15 posted on 05/25/2012 11:13:49 AM PDT by mbarker12474 (If thine enemy offend thee, give his childe a drum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: kevcol

16 posted on 05/25/2012 11:20:14 AM PDT by Bratch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevcol

> “violated the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal treatment” [article]

Neither the Constitution nor any applicable amendment was written and approved by persons who intended for homosexual unions to be treated in the same way as heterosexual unions. (Anyone with even a superficial knowledge of the prevailing views of those times should know that.) If some persons nowadays wish to have that, they need to pass new laws, or in some cases new amendments, that say so.


17 posted on 05/25/2012 11:21:34 AM PDT by GJones2 (Judicial activism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevcol
Romney should make a list.

1. Repeal Obamacare

2. Fire All Federal Judges and start over

18 posted on 05/25/2012 11:24:06 AM PDT by Harley (Will Rogers never met Harry Reid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevcol

It’s Mrs Doubtfire!


19 posted on 05/25/2012 11:34:18 AM PDT by Darren McCarty (The Republican Party is bigger than the presidency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevcol

National Lawyers Guild is an outright communist group going way back.

She is just another reason we need a federal marriage amendment. One that even nails civil unions so even the sneaking way the left attacks marriage is shut off.


20 posted on 05/25/2012 11:41:31 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevcol

21 posted on 05/25/2012 11:49:53 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bratch

22 posted on 05/25/2012 11:59:58 AM PDT by tflabo (Truth or tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: kevcol
BJ Clinton appointment. [check]

J.D. from the UC Berkeley School of Law [check]

'National Lawyers Guild' member - a leftist "shadow" ABA [check]

Legal aid and public defender in SF [check]

Looks like a Dyke. [check]

23 posted on 05/25/2012 12:01:35 PM PDT by XenaLee (The only good commie is a dead commie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevcol
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) ( enacted September 21, 1996, is a United States federal law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman. The law passed both houses of Congress by large majorities and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.---Wiki

Unconstitutional our ashes you leftist tyrant hack judge.

24 posted on 05/25/2012 12:16:53 PM PDT by tflabo (Truth or tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deb
"This is going to keep happening till a defense of marriage amendment to the Constitution is passed."

Actually, the PROBLEM started with the pandering to select Classes of people, by politicians, for their VOTES.

Consequently, the POLITICALLY-APPOINTED Judges ruled that the Constitution's "Equal Protection" clause did not mean TO ALL PEOPLE, but rather now means to all people's agenda's. MEN and WOMEN, regardless of religion, color, or National Origin, are ALL that should be applied as the Equal....what sex lives, net worth, or non-citizenships are issues that should not even enter into any consideration.

We've lost our Common Sense, and moral compass. Sex activity has NO BEARING on what should or should not be applied under the 14th Amendment, period.

Allowing foreigners (criminally in THIS country), voting rights, driver's licenses, social security benefits, income tax credits, etc., etc., is costing Trillions.

Implement "love it or leave it", and let the mal-contents try to find a Country that's more accomodating to their antics (good luck with that !)

25 posted on 05/25/2012 12:17:34 PM PDT by traditional1 (Don't gotsta worry 'bout no mo'gage, don't gotsta worry 'bout no gas; Obama gonna take care o' me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kevcol

Ya think just maybe they did a little shopping around for a worthy leftist gremlin federal judge to declare a valid law (DOMA) as unconstitutional?


26 posted on 05/25/2012 12:22:43 PM PDT by tflabo (Truth or tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
Chances of that happening with Obama or Romney in office? Zero.

An Amendment, mind you. The President has nothing to do with the amendment process.

If there are majorities in the House and Senate, they can propose the amendment, and then the states get it. The President need not be consulted.

27 posted on 05/25/2012 12:45:58 PM PDT by thulldud (Is it "alter or abolish" time yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: manc
"We should not have given them civil unions years ago as giving them steps in their agenda has helped them further their bigger agenda."

Actually that would have worked perfectly had we, under Bush, slam-dunked DOMA as a Constitutional Amendment, with that bit of 2nd-tier accomodation as the sop to the mushy middle. NONE of this would be happening. Incrementalism favors the Left at every turn.

28 posted on 05/25/2012 1:17:59 PM PDT by StAnDeliver (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: kevcol

Wonder why gays can not conceive? Perhaps our generous government should make it a right?


29 posted on 05/25/2012 1:20:22 PM PDT by Leep (Enemy of the Statist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mbarker12474
It is also in the state interest to have males restrained by female companions

Well, maybe in the interest of a real kinky state.

30 posted on 05/25/2012 1:52:22 PM PDT by Melas (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: kevcol

A lizzbo if I have ever seen one.


31 posted on 05/25/2012 1:54:18 PM PDT by RetiredArmy (He has Risen!!! If you do not know Him, this is the perfect week to seek Him out!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevcol

She looks butch-dykey. Is she?


32 posted on 05/25/2012 2:03:03 PM PDT by 2harddrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevcol

DOMA does NOT violate any “equal protection”! EVERY adult in America has the right to marry ANY consenting partner of the opposite sex! The SAME rules apply to all. She never programmed a computer, I can tell!


33 posted on 05/25/2012 2:05:28 PM PDT by 2harddrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deb

“This is going to keep happening till a defense of marriage amendment to the Constitution is passed.”

The time for that has come.... and passed.
It’s too late now.

A few years ago, there was a “window of opportunity” through which a “Marriage Amendment” might have passed. But that window has now closed.

The left is traveling the same path with homosexual marriage as they did with abortion. That is, get liberalized laws passed in a few states, get court decisions in their favor in a few states, and then “go for the big one” in the Supreme Court.

Eventually, this is how they will win the issue.

Republicans and conservatives had their chance to stop gay marriage in it’s tracks, and backed away. They had a very good chance of getting a Marriage Amendment through both houses of Congress, but chose to put up the “Defense of Marriage” act because a Constitutional Amendment would have seemed too drastic, too “divisive”. They set themselves up for the defeat that’s coming.

By the way, I was one of the first posters on this board, and the first people anywhere, to propose a “Marriage Amendment” years ago. But again, one must “strike while the iron is hot”.

For conservatives, this iron has grown cold. I wish I could be more optimistic about this, but I’m not.


34 posted on 05/25/2012 2:31:36 PM PDT by Road Glide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kevcol

From a constitutional standpoint, DOMA is unconstitutional because the federal government does not have the power to legislate on such a matter.

But of course, those elected in both parties feel the need for government to have its say in everything.


35 posted on 05/25/2012 2:36:12 PM PDT by wastedyears ("God? I didn't know he was signed onto the system.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

I fully agree. The Tenth was written for a good reason.


36 posted on 05/25/2012 2:41:42 PM PDT by wastedyears ("God? I didn't know he was signed onto the system.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: kevcol

Without reading the article, I hope that the House’s legal defense team will be appealing this ludicrous decision.


37 posted on 05/25/2012 3:46:19 PM PDT by fwdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WashingtonSource

Oakland [Check]


38 posted on 05/25/2012 3:54:06 PM PDT by fwdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Deb
This is going to keep happening till a defense of marriage amendment to the Constitution is passed.

Insanely, this same "judge" will just find such an amendment to the US Constitution "unconstitutional."

39 posted on 05/25/2012 3:56:09 PM PDT by fwdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: StAnDeliver
Actually that would have worked perfectly had we, under Bush, slam-dunked DOMA as a Constitutional Amendment, with that bit of 2nd-tier accomodation as the sop to the mushy middle.

And instead, we'd have homosexual imposition by another name, then.

Wrong solution, buddy.

40 posted on 05/25/2012 4:00:45 PM PDT by fwdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Leep
Wonder why gays can not conceive? Perhaps our generous government should make it a right?

Uh, you think that they're not claiming this as a "right" already?

41 posted on 05/25/2012 4:02:46 PM PDT by fwdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: 2harddrive
She looks butch-dykey. Is she?

Itsadyke

42 posted on 05/25/2012 4:07:52 PM PDT by fwdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Adder

Homosexuals use the black Civil Rights Movement as a point of comparison to their cause. Abraham Lincoln in a debate with Stephen Douglas clarified the issue of racism by comparing a black man and a white man. Clearly, between the two there are differences, but add a dog to the picture and clearly it is the dog who is different.

Do the same with a homosexual couple (or even a single mom) and a heterosexual couple. This is the angle of attack of the Pink Mafia. We’re the same they claim, but add a child to the picture and anyone can see that they’re different. It robs the child to deny a mother or a father and the perspective they give.

Now, lest we lose the argument consider the following without a child. You’re deciding on whether or not someone needs psychological counseling. Here is their symptom - they like to put things in their rectum, as a matter of fact they love it and want it. What’s your diagnosis counselor - sane or insane?


43 posted on 05/25/2012 5:44:11 PM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: kevcol
U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken there was no proof the DOMA provision was "rationally related to a legitimate government interest."

Hey Claudia, what proof is there that defining marriage ITSELF is "rationally related to a legitimate government interest"?

Other, that is, than a tax definition?

44 posted on 05/25/2012 6:06:02 PM PDT by Talisker (He who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevcol

Obvious Lesbian [check]


45 posted on 05/25/2012 6:12:23 PM PDT by liberalh8ter (If Barack has a memory like a steel trap, why can't he remember what the Constitution says?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mbarker12474
The state did not create marriage as an act of favor and mushiness towards the loving couple making a commitment to each other.

It did so to compel the male to behave, in return for somewhat regular sex and regular companionship. It did so to protect females from powerful males and husbands. It did so because the state want large numbers of children produced. It demanded that marriages be permanent so that women were protected and nourished, men didn’t run wild, and children were not only plentiful but healthy. And, btw, with these children the state could grow economically and defend itself militarily.

Sorry, ALL of what you describe are cultural acceptances.

For "the state" did NOT "create marriage."

Marriage is a loving commitment made before God and the community. Traditionally, it has been also something people have wanted acknowledged by their preferred religious tradition, all over the world. That's why geneologists spend so much time in churches, looking through the marriage records and banns.

What 'the state" does is acknowledge "marriage" for tax purposes. That's it. And that's why allowing such a level of government definition is an incredible rape of the true meaning of the term - and of the human beings joined in matrimony.

46 posted on 05/25/2012 6:12:42 PM PDT by Talisker (He who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: tflabo

47 posted on 05/25/2012 9:10:31 PM PDT by massmike (The choice is clear in November: Romney or Caligula!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

I would offer that it is the judge who is not rational as to understanding rational history of humans and related societal structures. The judge is a good example of social tampering using the laws and power of appointed office(not necessarily by social knowledge) to further some idiosyncrasy.


48 posted on 05/25/2012 9:50:58 PM PDT by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: kevcol
'National Lawyers Guild' member - a leftist "shadow" ABA [check]

The National Lawyers' Guild is an old Stalinist front group -- they're as Communist as Communist gets. Many ties to William Kunstler and his foundation on the one hand, and the CPUSA on the other.

They're involved in the "Troofer" canards, and also in trying to get Bush and Cheney indicted and tried in The Hague in a Communist show trial.

49 posted on 05/26/2012 2:38:33 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevcol

She looks like a vagitarian.....


50 posted on 05/26/2012 5:03:44 AM PDT by Quickgun (Second Amendment. The only one you can put your hands on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson