Posted on 07/09/2010 6:17:18 PM PDT by Kaslin
The Law: An activist judge has declared the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, saying states have a right to define what marriage is. If it feels good, do it. This is a recipe for societal suicide.
With this gavel, I thee wed. In effect, Joseph Tauro, a federal district court judge in Boston, said that to same-sex couples when he ruled the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional on grounds it denied them equal protection.
A third of the judge's decision involved all the benefits, financial and legal, that the feds and DOMA were denying to same-sex couples, as if marriage was just another business deal and not the basic foundation of a stable society.
Tauro rests his decision on two points. One is that the feds abdicated the domain of marriage to the states by decades, even centuries, of disinterest in the subject. The other is that states have a right, free from federal encroachment, to define marriage in their borders.
Marriage was never defined at a federal level because no one thought it was necessary — just as no one thought necessary until recently to decide the Second Amendment meant what it said about an individual's right to bear arms in defense of home and family. But modern-day political and judicial liberal activism has made action on some dormant issues necessary.
Tauro said he is "convinced that the federal government's long history of acquiescence in this area indicates that, indeed, the federal government traditionally regarded marital status determination as the exclusive province of state government." Unfortunately, activist judges didn't share that view of states' rights.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
bookmark
bookmark
If Kagen gets confirmed they are sure to have two Lesbian votes in the Supreme Court.
The primary purpose of the DOMA was to give cover to states that do not wish to be bound by the Full Faith and Credit provision in the Constitution re gay marriage. If this gets thrown out by the SCOTUS any state’s gay marriage law must be honored by every state in the Union! It is not just a states rights issue!
Without doubt the federal courts are responsible of the trouble this nation is in. They need to be ignored.
Exactly. As Evan Wolfson, who at the time was still lead counsel for Lambda Legal, laid it out in a gay e-zine interview in 2001, the homosexual strategy has always been to pursue a Supreme Court decree imposed on the overwhelming majorities of the 50 States, by getting a decree allowing them to "marry" (as in Massachusetts) in just one State, and then go whining to the Supreme Court that their "marriages" were not being honored by the recalcitrant (undegenerate) States in accordance with Article IV's Full Faith and Credit Clause.
It will require an amendment to the Constitution to cure what Wolfson and his allies are doing, and the lotus-eating East Coast elites are determined now to ensure the degenerates have their way.
No, this is a States Rights issue - just like abortion, health care, and so many other things. The Federal Government needs to back off and allow the States to implement their own laws. This is a rare instance of judgment that I agree with.
Now if only these same judges would take that same 10th amendment into consideration on other issues!
If that was the case, Gun laws would be given much more significance! The problem is that the Federal Government picks and chooses which laws it would like to enforce.
States on the other hand, have no say. That is contradictory to the Constitution and the 10th Amendment.
A constitutional amendment that declares marriage to be between one woman and one man may not even pass at this point. I would word it thusly: "No state shall be bound by marriage contracts performed in other states if those contracts violate state law".
I disagree. The Full Faith and Credit Clause is already in the federal Constitution; that's why the perverts are attacking the States using FF&C in federal courts. They can force all 50 States to give them what they do not deserve, and roll the 95% majority, using only the corrupt court decree from their heavily lobbied Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court chief justice, who's probably one of their own, and a morally, intellectually, and ethically corrupt U.S. Supreme Court decree like that in Lawrence 2003.
That Massachusetts has done what they did is a scandal. The liberals in the Massachusetts legislature conspired to ensure that neither would the legislature respond to the Supreme Judicial Court's corrupt decree, nor would the People, who were strongly opposed, have an opportunity to vote on the issue. So the Massachusetts law is corrupt and perverted.
But the perverts intend now -- they told us they would do this, as I said -- to the rest of the States, using the federal court system and the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
This is unjust beyond belief. But pervs are pervs; their malice and sociopathic hatred of the society that justly and rightly rejects their perversion is implacable, and we can expect nothing but assaults on society from them forever. Frankly, I think they cannot and absolutely will not live in our society according to our rules but will always attempt to impose their own by cabal and propaganda, just as Hunter Madsen, co-author of After the Ball (which was originally titled "Overhauling Straight America" when it was a countercultural newspaper serial article), explained about lying homosexual political ads:
“It makes no difference that the ads are lies . . . because we’re using them to ethically good effect, to counter negative stereotypes that are every bit as much lies, and far more wicked ones.”
--Quoted by David Kupelian in The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption disguised as Freedom, 2005, page 28.
As if he has moral authority to define what "wicked" is, who is himself ontologically corrupt, perverted, and debased.
VERY WELL SAID!
BRAVO!!
I strugge with this one. The strict constructionist in me says you got to respect the “Full Faith and Credit Clause” and therefore extend this repsect to any state law/judgment. Can’t be selective about it.
Of course, the district judge in the most recent ruling used the 10th amendment argument, which is dumb as that opens up a zillion other cases to rulings adverse to progressive causes and favaroble to conservative causes.
While the most recent ruling is suspect in its reasoning, I am still torn on the constitutionality of DOMA.
PS: I am opposed to same sex marriages!
While I disagree with SCOMS decision on the marriage issue, I also disagree that the “Full Faith and Credit” clause should not apply to (exclude) legal precedents established by the courts in a particular state. It is a tough issue. I am utterly torn on this one. Strict constructionism says follow the letter of the constitution. Strict consevratism says same sex marriage is evil and worse, when it is legitimized by courts.
Hmmmm.....I am ready for some solid constitutional reasoning (Scalia / Roberts ilk have to decide).
Sorry, SCOMS must be SCOMA.
One problem with the Mass. Judge’s decision........
Gay Marriage is STILL Not Legal in Mass.!
For years now — since 2005 — the homosexual lobby has filed and refiled its bill to legalize “gay marriage” in Massachusetts. They know that the law as it now stands refers to “man/woman”, “husband/wife” relationships as marriage. Today, the Judiciary Committee once again sent the bill to “study” — meaning, they killed it. But the very existence of this bill over the years confirms that we are correct that “gay marriage” has never been made legal in Massachusetts.
http://massresistance.blogspot.com/2010/03/confirmed-today-gay-marriage-still-not.html
Ping
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.