NY appeals court nixes Defense of Marriage Act

[Zippyjuan]

http://enews.earthlink.net/article/us?guid=20121018/f87fa44e-a050-4950-8e13-1065ce85d8c5

NEW YORK (AP) — Saying the gay population has "suffered a history of discrimination," a divided federal appeals court in Manhattan ruled Thursday that a federal law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman was unconstitutional, adding fuel to an issue expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court soon.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals seemed interested in adding its voice to several other rulings already at the high court's doorstep by issuing its 2-to-1 decision only three weeks after hearing arguments on a lower court judge's findings that the 1996 law was unconstitutional.

In a majority opinion written by Judge Dennis Jacobs, the 2nd Circuit, like a federal appeals court in Boston before it, found no reason the Defense of Marriage Act could be used to deny benefits to married gay couples. It supported a lower court ruling after a woman sued the government in 2010, saying the law required her to pay $363,053 in federal estate tax after her partner of 44 years died.

Jacobs, though, went beyond the Boston court, saying discrimination against gays should be scrutinized by the courts in the same heightened way as discrimination faced by women was in the 1970s. At the time, he noted, they faced widespread discrimination in the workplace and elsewhere. The heightened scrutiny, as it is referred to in legal circles, would mean government discrimination against gays would be assumed to be unconstitutional.

More at link.

 

[nobody's_hero]

I have a feeling that if conservatives continue to push for a federal ban on gay marriage then it's only a matter of time before it's impossible to fight it. Not that I think there should be a federal ban on it, it's just that taking fights over social issues to the highest level of government has never particularly worked out in the end for social conservatives. Even republicans seem to have forgotten what the word 'republic' means.

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

Let's see how fast AG Holder and Obama are, rushing to get their cronies in the US Judicial courts to overturn this... like, overnight? Oh wait, that was NDAA that any American can be labeled a terorrist, arrested and imprisoned, without due process of law or US Constitutional rights. That was the court that nixed the unconstitutional Act...Darn-It... keep mixing up the priorities.

Okay, back to social interference distractions...

Tabloid America

 

[Jumbo Shrimp]

Hope it will be upheld by SCROTUS. It's one of the few good federal laws.

 

[TonySutton]

Hope it will be upheld by SCROTUS. It's one of the few good federal laws.

Read up on the case.

For all of those people saying gay couples can get all of the same privileges through contracts, etc. These 2 ladies were together for 40 years. One got MS and died. She left all of her estate to the lady she has shared her life with for 40 years. They married in Canada prior to her death. If the survivor was the opposite sex of her spouse she would not be required to pay any federal estate tax on the inheritance but because of DOMA she was taxed over $350,000.

This is the basis of the lawsuit.

 

[Jumbo Shrimp]

Read up on the case.

For all of those people saying gay couples can get all of the same privileges through contracts, etc. These 2 ladies were together for 40 years. One got MS and died. She left all of her estate to the lady she has shared her life with for 40 years. They married in Canada prior to her death. If the survivor was the opposite sex of her spouse she would not be required to pay any federal estate tax on the inheritance but because of DOMA she was taxed over $350,000.

This is the basis of the lawsuit.

I support DOMA and I support banning government recognition of homosexual "marriage." I also support abolishing the estate tax.

If they were together for 40 years, why didn't they just jointly own whatever they owned?

 

[FrankRep]

Ron Paul supports the Defense of Marriage Act .

Congressman Ron Paul says he supports the Defense of Marriage Act
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/07/congressman-ron-paul-says-he-supports-defense-of-marriage-act/

 

[jkr]

"suffered a history of discrimination,"

ok.
let me know when they start getting SWATTED and having their dogs

NOT AN ISSUE

 

[Zippyjuan]

Ron Paul supports the Defense of Marriage Act .

Congressman Ron Paul says he supports the Defense of Marriage Act
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/07/congressman-ron-paul-says-he-supports-defense-of-marriage-act/

On the other hand, he has also said that the Federal Government should not be involved in it and telling people what they can and can't do.

http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/House/Texas/Ron_Paul/Views/Gay_Marriage/

PAUL: The federal government shouldn't be involved. I wouldn't support an amendment. But let me suggest -- one of the ways to solve this ongoing debate about marriage, look up in the dictionary. We know what marriage is all about.

But then, get the government out of it. Why doesn't it go to the church? And why doesn't it to go to the individuals? I don't think government should give us a license to get married. It should be in the church.

 

[FrankRep]

On the other hand, he has also said that the Federal Government should not be involved in it and telling people what they can and can't do.

http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/House/Texas/Ron_Paul/Views/Gay_Marriage/

Ron Paul, however, supports the Defense of Marriage Act .

 

[Zippyjuan]

But isn't that the government telling people what they can and can't do? That marriage MUST be between one man and one woman? Another quote from my earlier link:

I want less government involvement. I don't want the federal government having a marriage police. I want the states to deal with it if they need to, if they need to.

But if you didn't need the states -- really, why do we have to have a license to get married? Why don't we just go to the church? What other individuals do, why can't we permit them to do whatever they call it that is their problem not mine. Just so nobody else forces their definition of marriage on you. That is what we have to prevent.

So I would say less government would be better if you have to have regulations let the state governments do it

He seems to present conflicting information on the issue.

 

[BamaAla]

...

 

[FrankRep]

But isn't that the government telling people what they can and can't do? That marriage MUST be between one man and one woman? Another quote from my earlier link:


He seems to present conflicting information on the issue.

The Government doesn't have the authority to re-define marriage.

Ron Paul has also said that at the federal level he opposes “efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman.” He believes that recognizing or legislating marriages should be left to the states and local communities, and not subjected to "judicial activism."[143] He has said that for these reasons he would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, had he been in Congress in 1996.​

Wikipedia: Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul > Same-sex_marriage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Same-sex_marriage

 

[Zippyjuan]

The Government doesn't have the authority to re-define marriage.

Ron Paul has also said that at the federal level he opposes “efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman.” He believes that recognizing or legislating marriages should be left to the states and local communities, and not subjected to "judicial activism."[143] He has said that for these reasons he would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, had he been in Congress in 1996.​

Wikipedia: Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul > Same-sex_marriage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Same-sex_marriage

Let me highlight a different part of the quote in my previous post:

I want less government involvement. I don't want the federal government having a marriage police. I want the states to deal with it if they need to, if they need to.

But if you didn't need the states -- really, why do we have to have a license to get married? Why don't we just go to the church? What other individuals do, why can't we permit them to do whatever they call it that is their problem not mine. Just so nobody else forces their definition of marriage on you. That is what we have to prevent.

So I would say less government would be better if you have to have regulations let the state governments do it

The act imposes somebody's definition on everybody.

 

[FrankRep]

The act imposes somebody's definition on everybody.

The Government's definition is only affected, not your personal definition.