Doma Ruled Unconstitutional

[theburningliberal]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/31/us/massachusetts-same-sex-marr iage/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

I am aware that there is a separate Gay Marriage thread, but I believe this deserved its own thread because of the uniqueness of the issue.

I have yet to read the courts opinion (I just now found the CNN announcement) but in a nutshell, one of DOMA's 2 main provisions (the federal ban on recognizing same-sex marriages) has been struck down by the First District Court of Appeals. The other provision (not requiring states to recognize SSM performed in other states) still stands, however the law, if its unconstitutionality is upheld on appeal, is now significantly weakened compared to its original version.

Reaction from Newgrounds?

[kakalxlax]

they should change laws to make marriage unnecessary: put whoever you want in your will, have your accounts/properties shared with who you please.
Marriage is stupid these days, it only made sense when DNA parental testing didn´t exist, now it`s just a useless thing that culture is dragging

[Camarohusky]

If you get a hold of the opinion, please post it. I would like to know how the court rationally struck down federal non-recognition of homosexual marriage as violating the equal protection clause, but didn't find so for states' recognition of other states' same sex marriages. I also would like to see how they dealth with full faith and credit (though I am not sure if that clause necessarily applies to state recognition of other states ot begin with).

My feelings on eradicating marriage entirely are already known. Needless to say, I don't think that idea is any good at all.

[Angry-Hatter]

At 5/31/12 03:20 PM, Camarohusky wrote: If you get a hold of the opinion, please post it.

I think this is it: http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=10-220 4P.01A

Knock yourself out.

[theburningliberal]

At 5/31/12 03:49 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

At 5/31/12 03:20 PM, Camarohusky wrote: If you get a hold of the opinion, please post it.

I think this is it: http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=10-220 4P.01A

Knock yourself out.

Yeah that's it. Now reading time. :D

[theburningliberal]

Comments I found interesting from the opinion:

In addition, Supreme Court precedent offers some help to each side, but the rationale in several cases is open to interpretation. We have done our best to discern the direction of these precedents, but only the Supreme Court can finally decide this unique case.

Central to this appeal is Supreme Court case law governing equal protection analysis. The Gill plaintiffs say that DOMA fails under the so-called rational basis test, traditionally used in cases not involving "suspect" classifications. The federal defendants said that DOMA would survive such rational basis scrutiny but now urge, instead, that DOMA fails under so-called intermediate scrutiny. In our view, these competing formulas are inadequate fully to describe governing precedent.

So both sides presented a case on which analysis should be used to decide the case, and the 1st district rejected both.

In assailing DOMA, the plaintiffs and especially the Commonwealth rely directly on limitations attributed to the Spending Clause of the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment; the Justice Department, along with the Legal Group, rejects those claims. In our view, neither the Tenth Amendment nor the Spending Clause invalidates DOMA; but Supreme Court precedent relating to federalism-based challenges to federal laws reinforce the need for closer than usual scrutiny of DOMA's justifications and diminish somewhat the deference ordinarily accorded.

So DOMA violates neither the Spending Clause, or the states rights' amendment, yet is still unconstitutional? Interesting...

For generations, moral disapproval has been taken as an adequate basis for legislation, although usually in choices made by state legislators to whom general police power is entrusted. But, speaking directly of same-sex preferences, Lawrence ruled that moral disapproval alone cannot justify legislation discriminating on this basis

Finally, it has been suggested by the Legal Group's brief that, faced with a prospective change in state marriage laws, Congress was entitled to "freeze" the situation and reflect. But the statute was not framed as a temporary time-out; and it has no expiration date, such as one that Congress included in the Voting Rights Act. See Nw. Austin, 129 S. Ct. at 2510 (describing original expiration date and later extensions); City of Boerne, 521 U.S. at 533. The House Report's own arguments--moral, prudential and fiscal--make clear that DOMA was not framed as a temporary measure.

We conclude, without resort to suspect classifications or any impairment of Baker, that the rationales offered do not provide adequate support for section 3 of DOMA. Several of the reasons given do not match the statute and several others are diminished by specific holdings in Supreme Court decisions more or less directly on point. If we are right in thinking that disparate impact on minority interests and federalism concerns both require somewhat more in this case than almost automatic deference to Congress' will, this statute fails that test.

Invalidating a federal statute is an unwelcome responsibility for federal judges; the elected Congress speaks for the entire nation, its judgment and good faith being entitled to utmost respect. Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 175 (1976) (plurality opinion). But a lower federal court such as ours must follow its best understanding of governing precedent, knowing that in large matters the Supreme Court will correct mis-readings (and even if it approves the result will formulate its own explanation).

In reaching our judgment, we do not rely upon the charge that DOMA's hidden but dominant purpose was hostility to homosexuality. The many legislators who supported DOMA acted from a variety of motives, one central and expressed aim being to preserve the heritage of marriage as traditionally defined over centuries of Western civilization. See H.R. Rep. No. 104-664, at 12, 16. Preserving this institution is not the same as "mere moral disapproval of an excluded group," Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 585 (O'Connor, J., concurring), and that is singularly so in this case given the range of bipartisan support for the statute.

:The opponents of section 3 point to selected comments from a few individual legislators; but the motives of a small group cannot taint a statute supported by large majorities in both Houses and signed by President Clinton. Traditions are the glue that holds society together, and many of our own traditions rest largely on belief and familiarity--not on benefits firmly provable in court. The desire to retain them is strong and can be honestly held.

For 150 years, this desire to maintain tradition would alone have been justification enough for almost any statute. This judicial deference has a distinguished lineage, including such figures as Justice Holmes, the second Justice Harlan, and Judges Learned Hand and Henry Friendly. But Supreme Court decisions in the last fifty years call for closer scrutiny of government action touching upon minority group interests and of federal action in areas of traditional state concern.

To conclude, many Americans believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and most Americans live in states where that is the law today. One virtue of federalism is that it permits this diversity of governance based on local choice, but this applies as well to the states that have chosen to legalize same-sex marriage. 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.

This is interesting. So the reason DOMA is unconstitutional is not because of the Spending Clause or the 10th Amendment, but rather because Congress failed to adequately justify the law? I mean, it makes sense, given how quickly DOMA was originally passed (and how short the legislation is, containing only 2 functional paragraphs and almost completely devoid of evidentiary findings.

I think it will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court handles this case. I definitely think this one will eventually make it there, given the issues involved. If they do side with the 1st District's opinion, what effect will that have on Congress' ability to make and pass laws? Will there be a precedent to strike down laws that lack strongly compelling and significant amounts of evidentiary findings? I'm still not sure how such a decision would affect any other laws currently on the books, either.

[Gario]

At 5/31/12 01:57 PM, kakalxlax wrote: they should change laws to make marriage unnecessary: put whoever you want in your will, have your accounts/properties shared with who you please.

That's a pretty good idea, actually.

[BUTANE]

At 5/31/12 01:57 PM, kakalxlax wrote: they should change laws to make marriage unnecessary: put whoever you want in your will, have your accounts/properties shared with who you please.
Marriage is stupid these days, it only made sense when DNA parental testing didnÃ'´t exist, now it`s just a useless thing that culture is dragging

Ultimately I agree with this. But since that is not really a plausible I am in favor of the ruling on DOMA. Gay, straight, Bi, whatever...you should be able to have the same rights as anyone else with the person of your choosing. I'm assuming this will end up the SCOTUS, at which time I hope the concur with the appeals court. DOMA is as archaic as the old laws that banned whites and blacks from marrying one another. People need to get over their prejudices and move on to more important issues.

[Ravariel]

At 5/31/12 04:35 PM, theburningliberal wrote: I think it will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court handles this case. I definitely think this one will eventually make it there, given the issues involved. If they do side with the 1st District's opinion, what effect will that have on Congress' ability to make and pass laws? Will there be a precedent to strike down laws that lack strongly compelling and significant amounts of evidentiary findings? I'm still not sure how such a decision would affect any other laws currently on the books, either.

We can be ever so optimistic that it will force Congress to do their goddamn due diligence when writing legislation instead of knee-jerk reactionary bull like DOMA, but that may be a bridge or two too far.

[Camarohusky]

There are a couple key issues I saw in burning's synopsis:

What level of scrutiny is the court awarding sexual orientation?
- The level of scrutiny used here could effect the entire scope of gay issues, especially if a higher standard is applied.
How does the Court reconcile the "tradition of marriage" argument with the Loving v. Virginia decision declaring marriage restrictions based on race unconstitutional?
- If I remember right, one of the supports for race restrictions was tradition.

It's late, so I will read this decision and re-read Loving later to see what I can find.

[redzone]

I haven't actually heard a rational argument against gay marriage yet. Usually people who are against it get so defensive and angry and then they just spew out nonsense.

Like "If gay marriage become legal then heterosexual marriage will become illegal and everyone will turn gay" I have heard this kind of argument, by full grown adults mind you, many times.

Granted, this is an extreme idiotic example, but the rest I have heard are not so much different either.

Like when some says it is against the will of God. You know that would mean something if this country was a theocracy. I know lot of people in the government treat it as such, but it isn't one.

Some think that their opinion on it being "gross" makes it a valid argument that could be held up in court. It isn't valid, it is a personal opinion. Plus not everyone sees it as gross.

America claims to be the #1 free country ever, if that were such then gay marriage would already be legal.
I think America should give up its foam #1 hand because it certainly is not #1, and I am not just saying this because of the whole gay marriage stuff, there are a lot of other issues that make it not #1. Education for one.

People who say america is #1 just say it and if anyone asks why its #1, they say because it is, and dont question why it is. There seems to be a lot of mindless slaves in this country that dont have any actual opinions of their own, they just go along with what ever their favorite news media says. Mindless drones. This country has really gone down the shitter, and it has a lot to do with the people of this country too lazy to do anything really about it. They complain, but they complain to the tv, or on the interent, but get so over worked by it that they sound like complete morons.

I know I went of on a rant, sorry

[theburningliberal]

At 6/1/12 03:53 AM, redzone wrote: I haven't actually heard a rational argument against gay marriage yet. Usually people who are against it get so defensive and angry and then they just spew out nonsense.

Like when some says it is against the will of God. You know that would mean something if this country was a theocracy. I know lot of people in the government treat it as such, but it isn't one.

There is a possible framework for a rational argument against gay marriage, but I have yet to see anyone actually take it up and use it. Obama actually frames the basis for the rational argument -

Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal rather than religion-specific values... it requires that their proposals be subject to argument and amenable to reason. Now, I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, to take one example, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, even those with no faith at all.

Short version - if there is a legitimate, secular interest in prohibiting gay marriage, then it is possible for us to legitimately ban the practice, much the same way we have found secular reasons to prohibit murder and rape and many other biblically condemned crimes. In this case, however, I have yet to find a single legitimate and secular reason for banning the practice of gay marriage. Indeed, the lack of any secular basis for banning gay marriage is the exact reason why the 1st District Court of Appeals has ruled this section of DOMA unconstitutional.

To Camaro - This court actually invalidated DOMA under federalism case law, specifically citing the Commerce Clause as was done in some other cases.

In United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), and United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), the Supreme Court scrutinized with special care federal statutes intruding on matters customarily within state control. The lack of adequate and persuasive findings led the Court in both cases to invalidate the statutes under the Commerce Clause even though nothing more than rational basis review is normally afforded in such cases.

Given that DOMA intrudes broadly into an area of traditional state regulation, a closer examination of the justifications that would prevent DOMA from violating equal protection (and thus from exceeding federal authority) is uniquely reinforced by federalism concerns.

Although the House Report is filled with encomia to heterosexual marriage, DOMA does not increase benefits to opposite-sex couples--whose marriages may in any event be childless, unstable or both--or explain how denying benefits to same-sex couples will reinforce heterosexual marriage. Certainly, the denial will not affect the gender choices of those seeking marriage. This is not merely a matter of poor fit of remedy to perceived problem, but a lack of any demonstrated connection between DOMA's treatment of same-sex couples and its asserted goal of strengthening the bonds and benefits to society of heterosexual marriage.

Also, this case relates specifically to section 3 of DOMA, the 'federal definition of marriage.' Section 2 - the paragraph that prevents states from having to recognize SSM from other states - is not at issue in this case, and thus was not decided on.

[DoctorStrongbad]

At 5/31/12 12:23 PM, theburningliberal wrote: http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/31/us/massachusetts-same-sex-marr iage/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

I am aware that there is a separate Gay Marriage thread, but I believe this deserved its own thread because of the uniqueness of the issue.

I am glad that Doma was ruled Unconstitutional.