Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Appeals court strikes down DOMA: Tradition doesn't justify unequal treatment (+video)
The Christian Science Monitor ^ | May 31, 2012 | Warren Richey

Posted on 05/31/2012 1:49:02 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

The federal appeals court in Boston struck down the Defense of Marriage Act on Thursday, ruling that the federal statute violates the constitutional rights of gay and lesbian married couples to equal treatment under the law.

The action by a unanimous three-judge panel of the First US Circuit Court of Appeals sets the stage for a much-anticipated showdown at the US Supreme Court over same-sex marriage.

Declaring that tradition alone was not enough to justify disparate treatment of same-sex couples, the appeals court said DOMA failed to pass constitutional muster.

“Under current Supreme Court authority, Congress’ denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married in Massachusetts has not been adequately supported by any permissible federal interest,” Circuit Judge Michael Boudin wrote for the court in a 28-page decision.

Joining the decision were Chief Judge Sandra Lynch and Judge Juan Torruella.

The decision comes three weeks after President Obama announced his support of gay marriage. The Justice Department had initially worked to defend DOMA against the Massachusetts-based legal challenges, but last year announced it would no longer argue for the statute’s constitutionality....

(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: doma; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; homosexualmarriage; judiciary; lesbians; moralabsolutes; samesexmarriage; scotus; ssm
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-49 next last
Well, that just became a major campaign issue, if it wasn't before this.
1 posted on 05/31/2012 1:49:15 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Not for Romney, but certainly for many other races around the country.


2 posted on 05/31/2012 1:52:57 PM PDT by Future Snake Eater (CrossFit.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

The corrupt court calls the laws of God “tradition alone”. They will answer to a much higher Court one day.


3 posted on 05/31/2012 1:53:00 PM PDT by beethovenfan (If Islam is the solution, the "problem" must be freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Suppose two sisters get married. Would the learned justices consider that the law requires the local authority to issue a marriage certificate.
4 posted on 05/31/2012 1:54:57 PM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

In this Calvinball, normally there would be a second appeal to the circuit to hear it as a whole (”en banc”) rather than as a panel. But who’s keeping score.

Barack will look like a hypocrite to his lefties if he doesn’t embrace this. And if he does embrace it, wanna bet a dozen pancakes that Mitt waffles back to the right again on the issue.

Of course this is only borrowing from the also-traditional idea of family getting tax benefits. Why does marriage have to mean squat? What if I marry my tomcat, does he now get veterinary benefits?


5 posted on 05/31/2012 1:57:21 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Let me ABOs run loose Lou!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Boudin, Michael
Born 1939 in New York, NY

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Nominated by George H.W. Bush on May 18, 1990, to a seat vacated by John H. Pratt. Confirmed by the Senate on August 3, 1990, and received commission on August 7, 1990. Service terminated on January 31, 1992, due to resignation.

Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Nominated by George H.W. Bush on March 20, 1992, to a seat vacated by Levin Hicks Campbell. Confirmed by the Senate on May 21, 1992, and received commission on May 26, 1992. Served as chief judge, 2001-2008.

Education:
Harvard University, B.A., 1961
Harvard Law School, LL.B., 1964

Professional Career:
Law clerk, Hon. Henry J. Friendly, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1964-1965
Law clerk, Hon. John Harlan, Supreme Court of the United States, 1965-1966
Private practice, Washington, D.C., 1966-1987
Visiting professor, Harvard Law School, 1982-1983
Lecturer, Harvard Law School, 1983-1998
Deputy assistant attorney general, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 1987-1990


6 posted on 05/31/2012 1:57:42 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

A lefty once told me a grandson should be able to marry his grandmother.


7 posted on 05/31/2012 1:58:43 PM PDT by Leep (Enemy of the Statist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Future Snake Eater

Mitt’s handlers, whatever they be, would be mighty tempted to lean on Mitt about this. This is one of the Mormon elite, after all.


8 posted on 05/31/2012 1:58:56 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Let me ABOs run loose Lou!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

So now we have gay marriage, sex-selection abortions, and John Edwards as the once-and-future Democrat messiah. Are there some other countries we could go to?


9 posted on 05/31/2012 2:00:31 PM PDT by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beethovenfan

The fool has said in his heart “[there is] no God.”

This is only icing on the cake of wickedness. Who would have let on that abortion would have turned into the huge slaughter it did, yet the opposition to that is very muted.


10 posted on 05/31/2012 2:02:24 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Let me ABOs run loose Lou!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

The Sodomizing of Amerika continues unabated..............


11 posted on 05/31/2012 2:02:30 PM PDT by Red Badger (Think logically. Act normally.................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
Exactly. Society sets all kinds of rules on marriage besides gender. You have to be certain age, incest is prohibited, polygamy is against the law; etc. If marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, how is this alone unequal treatment? What about all these other societal restrictions?
12 posted on 05/31/2012 2:02:46 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Not sure it’s relevant, but it is interesting. One of Boudin’s former law clerks is a Director at GLAD:

http://www.glad.org/about/staff/jennifer-levi


13 posted on 05/31/2012 2:05:49 PM PDT by Theo (... with Liberty and Justice for all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

May they be tried by the final judge and found wanting.


14 posted on 05/31/2012 2:07:21 PM PDT by SandRat (Duty - Honor - Country! What else needs said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Declaring that tradition alone was not enough to justify disparate treatment of same-sex couples, the appeals court said DOMA failed to pass constitutional muster.

The sick and twisted judges are totally blind to the biological basis of marriage. Men living together are friends. Women living together are friends. They cannot be spouses because male/male genitalia, or female/female genitalia are NOT made for union. Male and female genitalia are made for union.

Union can only be achieved for same sex "couples" by means of perverse sex acts that risk the mental and physical safety and health of the perverts, and the population at large for communicable disease such as AIDs.

15 posted on 05/31/2012 2:07:21 PM PDT by olezip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet; All
The main "Breaking News" Thread
 
Boston appeals court finds federal Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional



16 posted on 05/31/2012 2:07:31 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

Maybe a Christian country with a low cost-of-living?

http://www.LivingInThePhilippines.com


17 posted on 05/31/2012 2:07:58 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (Ich habe keinen Konig aber Gott)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

So, a judge, with one bang of a gavel, can literally create a new man whose being is defined by his sexual practices? We as a nation are well on the way to very dark and evil place.


18 posted on 05/31/2012 2:08:30 PM PDT by TalBlack ( Evil doesn't have a day job.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

No, see, that’s different, or something.


19 posted on 05/31/2012 2:09:05 PM PDT by Yardstick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Leep

Creepy.

Was this “lefty” a woman who - perchance - had the hots for her own grandson?


20 posted on 05/31/2012 2:09:48 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-49 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
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

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