Defense of Marriage Act Ruled Unconstitutional

#2
#2
BOSTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) - A federal appeals court in Boston found on Thursday that a U.S. law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman unconstitutionally denies federal benefits to lawfully married same-sex couples in a ruling that promises to push the issue of gay marriage to the U.S. Supreme Court.

.....

The Supreme Court has never said that the U.S. Constitution requires states to permit same-sex marriages, the ruling noted. Therefore, the current case was limited to arguments "that do not presume or rest on a constitutional right to same-sex marriage," the panel said.

....

The ruling also did not address another provision of the law that says that one state does not have to recognize gay marriages performed in states that permit it. "Today's ruling just means that the federal government has to recognize states' marriages. If a married couple from Massachusetts wants to move to Texas, Texas doesn't have to recognize their marriage," said Paul Smith, a lawyer for the plaintiffs.
Click to expand...

Court says marriage law discriminates against gay couples
 
Last edited:
#6
#6
Kind of surprised this topic hasn't taken off yet. Guess people are still burned out on that NC one.
 
#9
#9
SCOTUS is where it needs to go. This issue may very well show just how politically influenced the court is. And yes, I know there is some political influence there, but SCOTUS is supposed to be able to put politics aside and make judgements based in law. How they decide and the arguements they come up with will show us if they can do that IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#10
#10
Clinton signed DOMA, wonder why it took so long to be deemed unconstitutional
 
#13
#13
the biggest issue scotus could decide is whether homosexuals are a protected class thereby requiring strict scrutiny when evaluating laws that impact homosexuals.
 
#15
#15
dreVol said:
the biggest issue scotus could decide is whether homosexuals are a protected class thereby requiring strict scrutiny when evaluating laws that impact homosexuals.
Click to expand...


Or, more likely, that it is impossible to come up with a reasoned argument as to how it is that the federal government can be in the business of regulating marriage.
 
#17
#17
lawgator1 said:
Or, more likely, that it is impossible to come up with a reasoned argument as to how it is that the federal government can be in the business of regulating marriage.
Click to expand...

This. DOMA is dumb and a constitutional amendment about marriage is even dumber.

I would imagine any ruling will pertain the Federal government's role in regulating marriage - not whether or not individual states can have their own rules.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top