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 ...
NAMBLA members unite - this idiot is toast
That makes it extremely important to get a Republican in the White House in 2012!
States Rights when it’s gay stuff.
Not States Rights when it’s abortion.
An out and out ban would require a constitutional amendment—so I have to go with the justices on this one. Remember, we had an amendment for Prohibition.
Of course, it would be a lot less hypocritical if they were as punctilious with regard to all of the other illegal things the government is doing...
Agree.
These folks really want to lose in ‘19 and ‘12! I just hope the R’s have the sense to run on a good platform.
The activist judges are getting more and more desperate. We need the Supreme Court to shut these jokers down and once and for all rule on the abomination that is homosexual ‘marriage’. The queers need to be told in no uncertain terms that America doesn’t condone their degenerate lifestyle choice.
“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” - John Adams
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!
Bullhockey. Idaho, Arizona, Oklahoma and Utah were only allowed into the Union if they would forever swear off plural marriage. In other words, make a permanent commitment to one man, one woman, MARRIAGE. In their constitutions. Congress had no problem exercising their constitutionally-appointed powers in this area when America was still sane.
Are you pro-polygamy?
By the way, when your Paulite position is mentioned in "mixed company," ie in venues where radical gay activists are present, they literally stand up and cheer at exactly what you are saying.
They know that under your understanding of things, they have won. They have destroyed the institution of marriage. They have successfully destroyed the natural family. They have forced America to accept their perversion in "law."
I have no reason to believe such a result will slow down the gay agenda much, if at all.
Agreed.
-what I just posted on another thread on the same topic:
"Just as there are unalienable rights there are unalienable facts e.g. there are men and women versus gender irrelevant sexual meat puppets...
The leftist could not win against the unalienable (God) so we see them wage battle on the definitions (facts).
IF the leftists can redefine unalienable facts THEN they can succeed in transforming (eliminating) unalienable rights.
DOMA changed nothing -it drew a line in the sand against the leftist assault on reality.
Suggesting it is a States Rights issue simply kicks the can down the road rather than taking a stand and provides the leftists opportunity to succeed and impose their lies via coercion, intimidation and deceit at the State level...
This is a war..."
I wonder...
...will homosexuals now have grounds to sue, for example, the Catholic Church in Massachusetts for discrimination? It seems to me that DOMA has been a kind of safety net against that scenario, and thus, not worth pursuing. But now with a ruling that says the states can define marriage any way they choose (how’s that for disconnect!), the matter seems to become a “civil right” that these groups will say is proof that the Church is discriminating against them with malice. Furthermore, Church-affiliated organizations will likely have the same burden of “equal opportunity” placed upon them when it comes to who they hire and who they don’t, with the ancillary issue of providing benefits to same-sex couples....
... I have to digest this more, but even though it’s a double-edged sword, the angry mob will grab hold of it eventually and turn it on us.
Why am I not surprised this happened in Boston? Liberal cesspool. I doubt a judge in Indiana would have ruled the same way.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” (Article XI)
It’s a rare occurrence these days when a Federal judge expresses an opinion that there are some powers should be referred to the states. Look at this way: If the Federal government can claim the right to make a law prohibiting gay marriage, then it could change its mind in a few years, and require all the states to allow gay marriage.
The states were sovereign when the union was formed. Only the enumerated powers were given to the feds, it did not include the regulation of marriage laws.
Just some examples of states issues: The states decide at what age people get married and that is not uniform across the country. The states decide what the requirements are for a marriage license.
States have traditionally accepted marriages that were formed legally in other states. except for gay marriage. Texas recognizes common law marriages, most states do not.
Marriage is a state issue. However, the feds may decide what definition of marriage may be applied as it pertains to federal statutes, and that must be uniformly applied.
I personally do not believe that marriage should be redefined. but not because I accept that common law practices can not be changed.
Immigration policy is up to the feds. Therefore, they may decide upon the impact marriage may have on citizenship, but not the definition of marriage in individual states under state laws.
The statement I made regarding bilateral recognition was a hypothetical how could one look at it type of thing. Immigration policy is an enumerated power of the feds. Immigration policy does not confer federal rights to meddle in state marriage laws.
Do a google search, and you will find that states do have state laws that pertain to marriage, and that they traditionally recognize each other’s legal marriages, when residency changes.
I’m not arguing against the principle that the state can decide the ages that someone can get married. That’s never been the question.
The question is whether or not the state can change the definition of marriage. Changing the age of majority from 16 to 17, does not change the definition.
If states could in fact change the definition of marriage, then Utah would have been admitted with policies permitting polygamy. Reynold’s goes on to explain why this is a bad idea. Marriage, at least in the United States has several principles.
One, all states are required to recognise a marriage performed in another state.
Two, marriages can permit non citizens to acquire citizenship.
Three, the definition of marriage pre-exists the united states and is a feature of British common law. Reynolds explicitly argues that because the entire US legal system is founded on the principles of the Common Law, that the states, and neither can the federal government change the definition of marriage.
So, in reality the DOMA is unnecessary. It does not confer upon the Federal government the power to define marriage.
Reynolds also argued that if different states had different definitions of marriage, that this would cause severe disruption in the United States. This we are already seeing today. They argued that it was an essential part of American culture to retain this definition of marriage.
Massachusetts has no argument other than they believe they are their own masters. They refuse to obey the people of their fine state, or the federal government, and past legal precedent.
The consequence, at least from what I can see is that Massachusetts marriages contrary to the common law have no legal force.
As I said, IF the definition can be changed, it is a state's right, clearly not the feds. It is not an enumerated power.
Many states ban marriage between cousins, but not all do.
One more example, Maryland's general assembly passed a law stating that marriage must be between opposite sexes. It was found to be constitutional by the court of appeals. Clearly, marriage is a state issue, except when federal programs are involved.
Doma is considered necessary for federal programs, otherwise there would be a violation of the equal protection clause.
If states do not wish to recognize other states laws, they don't have to, but what happens is that is goes to court and is decided under the laws of comity. Courts will generally find in favor of respect for other laws, unless there is some compelling reason not to.
This is why everyone is desperate to prevent same sex marriage in all states. The judges ruling in this case is whacked.
The courts have pretty much destroyed the concept of states’ rights. If it was truly the people of the state deciding they wanted gay marriage, fine. The marriage shouldn’t be valid in a state whose population kept it illegal, but in your own state and in likeminded states? Fine. But, that’s not how it works. It’s imposed on states by the courts, even when the people specifically vote it down. Since that’s how it works, we need that amendment as someone mentioned earlier.
“Actually this could be good for CA. This law has to be taken both ways. This would mean that the CA ban is Constitutional and can’t be overturned by the stupid homo judge.”
Yeah, doesn’t the CA judges decision not to release his ruling today, after the MA ruling, reflect interesting timing? I can’t help but wonder if he’s busy re-writing his entire opinion.
I’m always a little bit alarmed by the number of people who think the Federal government should have the power to micro-manage citizens’ lives. It’s there to provide a framework for the functioning of the nation and to provide our defense, with powers that are supposed to be severely limited otherwise. This is something most conservatives realize until one of their pet issues crops up, and they then decide the government SHOULD have the power to control everything people do.
This is undoubtedly a States Rights issue - sure, MA can endorse all the gay marriage it wants. That doesn’t mean it holds any water in Texas, which is as it should be. I’m not understanding how anyone who believes Arizona trumps the feds doesn’t believe that MA does as well. If someone believes the federal government should have the power to say gay marriage is illegal everywhere, does that person also believe they have the power to make it legal everywhere? Or does it, at that point only, become a States Rights issue for them?
Frankly, I’m of the belief that most of the federal government’s current powers were illegally and un-Constitutionally obtained. The more that’s done to reign the Legislative and Executive in, the better.
I agree with every thing you’ve said here.
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.