Skip to comments.
Fed judge: [Federal] Gay marriage ban unconstitutional
AP (via MSNBC) ^
| 07/08/2010
| Denise Lavoie
Posted on 07/08/2010 2:09:02 PM PDT by Pyro7480
A U.S. judge in Boston has ruled that a federal gay marriage ban is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right a state to define marriage.
U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro on Thursday ruled in favor of gay couples' rights in two separate challenges to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.
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....
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: California; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: activistjudges; california; communism; constitution; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; judge; marriage; massachusetts; moralabsolutes; prop8; roadtosocialism; romney; samesexmarriage; savethefamily
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-117 next last
To: ntmxx; Drango
41
posted on
07/08/2010 4:10:34 PM PDT
by
LomanBill
(Animals! The DemocRats blew up the windmill with an Acorn!)
To: ForGod'sSake; wagglebee; AdmSmith; Berosus; bigheadfred; blueyon; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; ...
States rights ping. :') Keyword prop8:
42
posted on
07/08/2010 4:13:26 PM PDT
by
SunkenCiv
("Fools learn from experience. I prefer to learn from the experience of others." -- Otto von Bismarck)
To: Pyro7480
will the same liberal judge also let states define marriage as one man and 10 women or a woman and her son.
nah course not , this is all about a perverted sick agenda which the far elft, commies and the gaystapo keep pushing
43
posted on
07/08/2010 4:18:45 PM PDT
by
manc
(WILL OBAMA EVER GO TO CHURCH ON A SUNDAY OR WILL HE LET THE MEDIA/THE LEFT BE FOOLED FOR EVER)
To: John O; Squantos; Eaker
The sad thing about this is that if the DOMA gets overturned this way then the faggots will get married in Mass. and then try to bring their perversion to our states and claim to be married. Maybe we should just shoot them as they invade our borders.
Hmmm. So tell me again why my carry permit isn't valid in Massachusetts, and my carbine isn't legal in California?
44
posted on
07/08/2010 4:20:44 PM PDT
by
glock rocks
(Wait, what?)
To: Pyro7480
if a judge said this in Utah say then would the commies, far left loons, those who are too dumb and look for the letter D and homosexuals then be happy about the decision and then having one man and 4 women .?
I really hope some polygamists go to MA and try to have their marriage there, actually they should do and lets see the loons in MA speak for them too.
ARF
45
posted on
07/08/2010 4:23:27 PM PDT
by
manc
(WILL OBAMA EVER GO TO CHURCH ON A SUNDAY OR WILL HE LET THE MEDIA/THE LEFT BE FOOLED FOR EVER)
To: Pyro7480; 185JHP; AFA-Michigan; Abathar; Agitate; Albion Wilde; AliVeritas; Antoninus; ...
Homosexual Agenda Ping
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
Leftists resort to states' rights to push their agenda, but deny states' rights when opposed to conservative issues. This is not a states' rights issue anyway. It's a natural law issue. Leftists can say "water is dry, not wet" but it doesn't make it so.
To: Jacquerie
Are you saying that the government cannot define the terms it uses in the laws it enacts?I'm saying that the Federal government cannot Constitutionally enact laws regarding matters where it has no Constitutional power to act. Defining marriage is not a power granted to the Federal government by the Constitution. That power is reserved to the States.
The Federal govenment has no business making any laws that care one way or the other about a person's marital status. That's not properly a Federal issue, concern or responsibility!
47
posted on
07/08/2010 4:32:20 PM PDT
by
sourcery
(Government should be as powerless as possible, while still able to protect individual rights)
To: sourcery
The government not only can, but must decide the requirements necessary to receive Medicare benefits. It must also define the terms used in the laws. Whenever marriage appears in fed law, it refers to man/woman.
From DOMA: “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.”
It is preposterous to let judges define the terms used in federal law. It violates the very separation of powers defined in our Constitution to acquiesce.
48
posted on
07/08/2010 4:41:37 PM PDT
by
Jacquerie
(We live in a judicial tyranny - Mark Levin)
To: sourcery
One of the founding planks of the GOP was the opposition of the admission of Utah as a territory as long as it practiced polygamy. The Federal gov’t forced Utah to ban polygamy before being allowed in a state. The Federal gov’t did not force Mass to drop gay marriage but stated that in terms of federal benefits and tax code gay marriages would not be recognized.
49
posted on
07/08/2010 4:43:02 PM PDT
by
C19fan
To: Jacquerie
Medicare is Unconstitutional, so that eliminates that issue. I challenge to find any Constitutional law where Congress has any Constitutional justification for using words such as "marriage" or "married" in the text of the law.
50
posted on
07/08/2010 4:44:31 PM PDT
by
sourcery
(Government should be as powerless as possible, while still able to protect individual rights)
To: All
Wonder if the RINOs who voted against a traditional definition of marriage constitutional amendment because they claimed the DOMA was sufficient will be speaking out. I bet their silence will be deafening.
51
posted on
07/08/2010 4:45:44 PM PDT
by
C19fan
To: sourcery
BTW, DOMA had no effect on homo marriage in MA. Fags can still marry.
52
posted on
07/08/2010 4:46:47 PM PDT
by
Jacquerie
(We live in a judicial tyranny - Mark Levin)
To: C19fan
The income tax is an excise tax. Constitutionally, excise taxes must be uniform. That means that progressive rates, and rates that differ based on marital status, are Unconstitutional.
53
posted on
07/08/2010 4:47:20 PM PDT
by
sourcery
(Government should be as powerless as possible, while still able to protect individual rights)
To: sourcery
In an idealized world that is true but in reality that is pretty silly since Medicare and Medicaid have been around for over 40 years.
54
posted on
07/08/2010 4:48:13 PM PDT
by
C19fan
To: Pyro7480
We either believe in the tyranny of fedzilla or we believe in states rights. Only liberals would want it both ways.
55
posted on
07/08/2010 4:48:39 PM PDT
by
Grunthor
(I like you but when the zombies chase us, I'm tripping you.)
To: Dilbert San Diego
You posted what I was going to say.
-PJ
56
posted on
07/08/2010 4:49:36 PM PDT
by
Political Junkie Too
("Comprehensive" reform bills only end up as incomprehensible messes.)
To: sourcery
From DOMA: 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.
Congress not only can, but must define the terms it uses in laws. Sheesh.
57
posted on
07/08/2010 4:50:32 PM PDT
by
Jacquerie
(We live in a judicial tyranny - Mark Levin)
To: sourcery
16th Amendment:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Where is the clause about uniformity?
58
posted on
07/08/2010 4:53:28 PM PDT
by
C19fan
To: Dilbert San Diego
Where in the Constitution does it say that the federal government - a government that heretofor we have all been vociferously arguing is one of limited, enumerated powers - has the power to define marriage? It doesn't, and the federal government shouldn't be engaged in that sort of behaviour.
Furthermore, let's not be too short-sighted about this result. In the first instance, it undercuts the federal government's ability to define marriage to include homosexual couples; and that is most assuredly one of the social-engineering dangers we face from the continued dominance of the fascist left.
Secondly, it provides some persuasive support for the argument that Congress also does not have the power to require individuals to purchase health insurance. There are definite economic ramifications to marriage and to defining who does, and who does not, get to marry - everything from taxes to benefits (including health care) to holding real property (tenancy by the entireties) - and thus the ability of certain individuals to marry necessarily effects interstate commerce. As such, if the Commerce Clause is as expansive as the fascist left would have us believe vis-a-vis Obastardcare, it necessarily follows that it would grant Congress the power to define something so eminently relevant to interstate commerce as the term "marriage."
Consequently, if it is the case that the federal government cannot define the term "marriage" under the powers granted to it by the Constitution, notwithstanding the wide-ranging economic effects of that status, it necessarily follows that Congress also does not have the power to coerce individuals into purchasing health insurance.
Let's take the little victories where we can, and see this for what it is: a brer rabbit moment for our side.
59
posted on
07/08/2010 4:58:33 PM PDT
by
Oceander
(The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance -- Thos. Jefferson)
To: C19fan
Article I, Section 8:
“. . . but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”
60
posted on
07/08/2010 5:00:17 PM PDT
by
Jacquerie
(We live in a judicial tyranny - Mark Levin)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-117 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson