Defense of Marriage Act ruled unconstitutional by second appeals court

[garbon]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/18/14537805-defense-of-marriage-act-ruled-unconstitutional-by-second-appeals-court?lite

A federal appeals court in New York ruled Thursday that the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, unconstitutionally denies federal benefits to lawfully married same-sex couples.

"Homosexuals are not in a position to adequately protect themselves from the discriminatory wishes of the majoritarian public," Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs wrote for the 2-1 majority.

"Even if preserving tradition were in itself an important goal, DOMA is not a means to achieve it," he said.

Judge Chester Straub dissented, arguing that the federal definition of marriage should be left to the political process. "If this understanding is to be changed, I believe it is for the American people to do so," he wrote.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is now the second federal appeals court to reject part of the law. The decision upheld a lower court ruling that had found a central part of the law unconstitutional.

Appeals in several cases are pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, which could choose to take up the issue in its current term.

"Next stop, Supreme Court," said Rick Jacobs, founder of the Courage Campaign. "Politicians and judges have no business telling anyone who they can love and who they can marry."

Two members of the three-judge panel ruled in favor of Edith Windsor, an 83-year-old woman who argued that the 1996 law discriminates against gay couples in violation of the Constitution.

Six states have legalized same-sex marriage, including New York in 2011. Because of the Defense of Marriage Act, which was passed in 1996, federal law and government programs do not recognize those marriages.

Windsor had to pay $363,000 in federal taxes after inheriting property from Thea Spyer, to whom she was married under New York law. The IRS stated the marriage was not recognized at the federal level and imposed the estate tax.

"Given her age and health, we are eager for Ms. Windsor to get a refund of the unconstitutional tax she was forced to pay as soon as possible," Roberta Kaplan, her legal counsel, said in a statement.

"This law violated the fundamental American principle of fairness that we all cherish," added Windsor. "I know Thea would have been so proud to see how far we have come in our fight to be treated with dignity."

The Obama administration said last year it considered the law unconstitutional and would no longer defend it. Instead, a group appointed by the Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives is defending the law in courts across the country.

The appeals court rejected the group's arguments that the law was necessary to maintain a uniform definition of marriage, that it served the government's interest of saving money and that it was necessary to encourage procreation.

I like those objections.

[MadImmortalMan]

Good.

Also, the IRS are dicks.

[Phillip V]

Gay marriage hopefully becomes legalized nationally within a few years.


What is the likely timeline?

[merithyn]

[viper37]

I like those objections.

Your party wants some US citizens to pay more taxes?  How strange...

[garbon]

I like those objections.

Your party wants some US citizens to pay more taxes?  How strange...

I really meant the last one - that it has to stay in place as it is necessary to encourage procreation.  My government doesn't care about me getting married, I ain't having babies!

[CountDeMoney]

Judge Chester Straub dissented, arguing that the federal definition of marriage should be left to the political process. "If this understanding is to be changed, I believe it is for the American people to do so," he wrote.

That's why you don't subject minority rights to the determination of the general electorate, douchebag.

Too bad there's an entire political party dedicated to that concept.

[CountDeMoney]

I really meant the last one - that it has to stay in place as it is necessary to encourage procreation.  My government doesn't care about me getting married, I ain't having babies!

Yeah, allowing heterophobes to get married in no way affects the reproductive rates of heterosexual marriages.

Unless, of course, preventing you from getting married allows you to be subsequently cured of your illness, so you can marry a chick later on.... 

[Faeelin]

Incidentally, this means Clemens is 0 for 6 on upholding DOMA.

[Martinus]

How do Republicans reconcile DOMA with saying that it is the states' rights issue to decide who can get married? Or is it the states' rights to decide provided that they decide against gay marriage?

[Faeelin]

How do Republicans reconcile DOMA with saying that it is the states' rights issue to decide who can get married? Or is it the states' rights to decide provided that they decide against gay marriage?

You could probably read the dissent or Boehnrer's comments on this to find out.

[Neil]

How do Republicans reconcile DOMA with saying that it is the states' rights issue to decide who can get married? Or is it the states' rights to decide provided that they decide against gay marriage?

You could probably read the dissent or Boehnrer's comments on this to find out.

Read laws?  That's the sort of thing that real lawyers do.

At any rate, the further legitimization of gays is a mistake.  They're less than we are, and they need to feel bad about their choice to be so.

[Habbaku]

Good.

Also, the IRS are dicks.

Yes, on both counts.

[dps]

How do Republicans reconcile DOMA with saying that it is the states' rights issue to decide who can get married? Or is it the states' rights to decide provided that they decide against gay marriage?

That's actually my main legal objection to DOMA--it's unconstitutional because it asserts a power not granted to the Federal government by the Constitution.

Of course, if we limit the Feds to powers actually given them by the Constitution, we have a lot of unconstitutional laws on the books.

[DontSayBanana]

That's actually my main legal objection to DOMA--it's unconstitutional because it asserts a power not granted to the Federal government by the Constitution.

Of course, if we limit the Feds to powers actually given them by the Constitution, we have a lot of unconstitutional laws on the books.

True, but this is one that's almost universally recognized as a state issue.  It's a gross misinterpretation of the supremacy doctrine; this should have had no bearing except on marriages performed in the District of Columbia.  States generally get to say who can and can't get married, so where a state's defined marriage, the feds should be deferring to that definition.  Sorry for the extra paperwork, IRS, but you don't get to have it both ways.