Hey, there! Log in / Register
Boston judge rules federal law against gay marriage violates Constitution
By adamg on Thu, 07/08/2010 - 5:17pm
Bay Windows reports on two decisions released today by U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro that the federal Defense of Marriage Act violates the constitutional right to due process and the constitutional concept of state sovereignty.
Read his decisions:
- Gill v. Office of Personnel Management (due process)
- Commonwealth of Massachusetts vs. Department of Health and Human Services (marriage is an issue left to states)
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Oh
snap.
Liberal legal scholar Jack
Liberal legal scholar Jack Balkin writes that Tauro's two opinions are "at war with each other":
Ding Dong
...DOMA's dead.
Well, if not dead, terminally ill...or if not that, pretty sick...
I'm still astonished that this Obama fellow doesn't have the guts to cut DOMA and DADT loose. DOMA so clearly is unconstitutional that Tauro's decisions seem inevitable. Whether this somehow waddles up to the SCOTUS and whether the Supremes take it are the questions at hand.
I was at the oral argument in Gill...
...and felt that Tauro had little choice other than to rule in the manner he did today. DOJ's attorney just could not articulate any convincing reasons for upholding section 3 of DOMA.
doma is alive and well
DOMA is alive and well and we have the votes on the supreme court to make sure that will not and ever be overturned. Time and Time again homosexual activists try to stake their claim and force their will on the people. The President is against gay marriage the secretary of state is against gay marriage and so is the supreme court an the majority of the American people are against gay marriage. Every time its been put on the ballot box it has failed 32 times.. Marriage is between a man and a women it is the bedrock of our society
Hey West 4th, You are
Hey West 4th,
You are mistaken. You have nothing. We are going to win and win and win. It must suck being an angry straight dude right now and I wish you luck with that. You can fight it and you are going to lose just like you have lost every other struggle for justice and equality this last 30 years.
Whit
you wait we are going to have
you wait we are going to have our day when it gets put back on the ballot here too like it has in every other state you cant go against the majority of the american people. We will overcome this setback
Aren't you in the wrong place?
Here, I'll point you in the right direction.
Hurry up
I mean which setback are we talking about here? Today's?
Or May 17, 2004? You know, when gay marriage was first legalized in the United States? You've had 6 years to "overcome" that setback and you've done fuck-all about it so far. Your ilk couldn't even get FIFTY people in the legislature in 2007 to vote for a marriage amendment to the commonwealth's constitution. In fact, the backlash from even trying to restrict civil rights through a constitutional amendment has spawned a potential amendment to prevent anyone from ever again trying to legislate in opposition to matters of civil rights or matters of equal protection.
Let's just say I'm not going to hold my breath on waiting for "your day" to come as you delusionally think it will.
Repressed
I would say West is not an angry straight dude, but rather a repressed homosexual. Do we need to list the many examples of politicians who vehemently spoke against homosexuality and were in short time discovered to be 'using a wide stance' in the bathroom stall?
A homosexual has never forced me to do anything
I'm sorry to hear they are forcing themselves on you.
Congrats
You epitomize the stereotype of people who buy into hate-filled conservative rhetoric because they are basically uneducated.
Epitomize. Look it up.
Bipartisan support
this has nothing to do with hate filled rhetoric. i am actually a democrat and there are just as many democrats as republicans united against this. There is bipartisan support unanimous bi partisan support against this issue. Family is the bedrock of our society once you start tinkering with that its a slippery slope.. Name a major democrat that is for it.. kerry bill clinto hillary clinon obama they are all against it. you callin me uneducated lol
Like I said...uneducated
Who is talking about Democrats or Republicans? I said conservative.
You should also stop using words like "unanimous" when you don't know what it means.
Does the name Barney Frank mean anything to you? He's only considered one of the most powerful members of Congress.
Before I give one whit about your "family is the bedrock" argument, you're going to have to show the detrimental effect SIX YEARS of gay marriage has imparted on family here in MA. MA is still the state with the lowest divorce rate in the nation and the rate has even gone *down* in the past 6 years.
You are an uneducated fearmonger. The fact that your arguments stink of the synonymous attitudes that Southern Democrats held in the 1960s should disgust you, but you unfortunately probably have no idea what I'm talking about. You're a textbook example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. (Again, look it up.)
Barney Frank whoopdy freakin
Barney Frank whoopdy freakin doo ! ok Frank supports it who else?? who did frank support for President, that's right Hillary Clinton who couldnt be more against it and against dont ask dont tell at the time when she was running for president. The leaders of both parties are against this. Yes i can say "unanimous" becuase 32 states have voted on this issue and 32 have voted it down, last time I checked thats 100%. Only when an unelected official makes a landmark ruling and the people are taken away thier right to a vote is when Gay marriage is enacted ! Yes it has had an adverse effect , in Lexington public schools the kids are being taught and bringing home books that show stories not about a King and a Queen but a King and a King! If they did a poll if that has an adverse effect on kids your damn sure it would. Gay Marriage is a loosing issue. Let it rest and the day will come for a repeal!
Can we get a majority vote here?
While we are voting on human rights here, and deciding things by majority vote that our founders knew better than to trust to majority vote, I think we should vote on Wet 4th's right to be a free and independent human being.
He is now officially a slave to all at Uhub. I claim alternate tuesdays - he's going to do a good job on those bathrooms or else! Oh yes, and I will force him to be a pagan on my watch!
Get a legal education too
"Only when an unelected official makes a landmark ruling and the people are taken away their right to a vote is when Gay marriage is enacted !"
I love when this group talks about the judiciary taking away people's right to vote by doing their job. Here are the basics of how the American legal system, as established by the Constitution, works: The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Laws cannot be written by legislators that would violate the Constitution. One branch of government (the Legislative) gets to write legislation, which, if signed into law by a second branch (the Executive) becomes law provided that it does not violate the Constitution. A third branch of government (the Judiciary) is charged with deciding when laws violate the Constitution. This is called checks and balances. You generally learn about this in middle-school (which the original author may have skipped judging from his/her grammar). Judge Tauro didn't take away anyone's right to vote. He simply decided that the law for which some of our elected officials voted violated the Constitution, so it couldn't be law. The Constitution does provide a means for changing such an outcome - its called amending the constitution. If you want to change the Judiciary's decisions interpreting the Constitution on all of the civil rights issues that you hate (gay marriage, abortion, etc.) you can try to get the Constitution amended. However, I suspect the reason that none of the groups who want to get these decisions reversed have tried this is because they know it would fail.
No, actually
They tried an amendment after the judicial decision on gay marriage as an equal right in MA. They failed.
They couldn't get "unanimous" support from the state's legislature in the Constitutional Convention back in 2006-2007 on a "vote". Screw "unanimous", they couldn't get *majority*...they couldn't even get FIFTY votes to continue the process. You know...the exact opposite that West 4th seems to think would happen if this were put up for majority vote now.
Again, appealing to the idea that there are people who will try to strike this down because of the dozens of times when a popular vote suppressed equal rights is exactly the same rhetoric and process that states tried to use to strike down the civil rights of blacks in the 1960s. We didn't allow them to continue suppressing civil rights then, and we won't allow it to continue for homosexual marriage now. The days of your backwards ways on treating homosexuals are coming to an end, West 4th. Go hug your family and leave these people alone.
Shifting goal posts
You claimed that there was not one powerful politician who was for it. You were wrong. That's all I had to prove and I did.
What is the adverse effect of "King & King" (amazon.com link provided in case anyone would like to pick up this book for their own children)?
What kind of poll would you suggest they take to discover this adverse effect? What harm do Lexington students show compared to other cities' kids in the Commonwealth? In fact, MA scores the highest of all of the states on reading in the 2009 national assessment. This is an improvement from their placement in 2003, prior to the start of gay marriage in the commonwealth.
You made a claim that we have hurt our family. You've now made a claim that we've hurt our children. Both have been completely unsubstantiated. I have to say that the only one that appears to be injuring your cause...is you.
United as One
Name a major politican who has run on the national ticket who has supported Gay marriage??? None 100% Unanimous 32 out of 32 they have struck it down! Even in the most liberal of states California which is arguably the most liberal state in the union. The people have to start barking down about civil rights and interracial marriage because my wife happens to be black. This is an issue that cuts across racial lines as one can see in the Gay marriage vote in Florida every single ethnic orgin voted against gay marriage overwhelming. Florida needed 60% of the vote to enact a law against gay marriage they got that and thensome in the most diverse stat in the country. African Americans Latinos and Caucasions all voted overwhelming against gay marriage with african americans 72% against gay marriage. This is a state where Obama carried for President easily.. The American public is against this issue its unanimous and cuts across all racial and religious lines. President Clinton,Bush and Obama are united against Gay marriage as is Sen Kerry and all other leaders of both parties. I can't think of another major issue in this country that Politicains from both sides of the isle are united on than that of Gay Marriage.
West 4th is right!
This really is an issue that unites people of all strokes. It's certainly united this board against his bigotted posterior.
What's Really Awesome...
Is that only ~20% of people really even bother to vote, so I'm not really sure what your election numbers prove other than that there's a large group of motivated homophobes out there.
So where do you live on that slippery slope?
"The people have to start barking down about civil rights and interracial marriage because my wife happens to be black."
Your marriage might be illegal right now, if people of good conscience hadn't stood up to bigoted assholes and fought for your right to marry the person you love. Why then turn around and stand on the opposite side now?
(assuming here you're not black, otherwise it doesn't count as an interracial marriage and we can add that to the list of things you're saying that make no sense)
Just so we're clear
"Family is the bedrock of our society once you start tinkering with that its a slippery slope.."
Are we just starting on your "slippery slope" right now, or did we start sliding into the abyss already? Because a lot of people thought interracial marriage would do it, and a lot of people thought that legalizing divorce would do it, and a lot of people thought it would wreck society when people started getting married for love and not for purposes of exchange of properties. Those people were all wrong, just as you're wrong right now.
Family is the "bedrock" of our society...
It's Fred and Wilma... not Fred and Wilmer (Valderrama)
You know, not only did the
You know, not only did the world not end when the Goodrich decision was issued, the Sox finally broke their World Series dry spell. What slippery slope are you so worried about?
Family as Bedrock
West, you really need to stop watching "Leave it to Beaver," come out of the 1950s and look around. The "family bedrock" you're trying to preserve by stopping Marriage Equality has been gone for 50 years. Oh, I agree, the family in the United States is in bad shape and under attack, but Gays had absolutely nothing to do with it.
What has damaged the family in the United States is not Gays, of course, but unregulated, over-the-top capitalism. Take a look at the data for changes in wages in real dollars since 1965 for the middle class. What you'll find is that it is far, FAR more difficult now for a family of four to sustain themselves on one wage earner's salary, yet that was the norm in the 1950s and 1960s. Now both parents have to work. Who is with the children? Who does the most important job that any one can ever do now? No one. Oh I don't care if its the mother or the father (or in my case the father or the father!) that raises the children, my point is that no one is doing it now and its not the fault of the Gays. No, its the fault of the same general people that brought you the latest meltdown of the economy.
You need to start looking at your data and aiming your rhetoric a bit better.
To be honest, taken as an aggregate, you're right - the (slim) majority of Americans are against marriage equality as I write this. Now. In 10 years, with the rise of a new generation that has grown up with "Glee" and "Project Runway," who realize that Gays are as threatening to society as pussy cats, the data will turn against you. And our grandchildren will look back on this time period and things like DOMA and they will look on you and yours in the exact same unbelieving, embarrassed way that we now look upon the Klu Klux Klan and its philosophy. You will be relegated to the dustbin of history as they have been. And for the same reasons.
MA already knows this, quite frankly. And its because of this that not only will a recall ballot never be voted on, it'll never reach the ballot stage.
Slipperly Slopes work both ways
Once you start banning certain types of marriages what's to stop judicial activists from banning other marriages? Soon blacks and whites won't be able to marry. Soon only American citizens will be allowed to marry. Soon only people over 35 will be allowed to marry. Soon you'll only be able to marry Jesus.
Once you start tinkering with the rights of the individual, the bedrock of our society, its a very slippery slope.
marriage is regulated.
You have to marry a human being. You can only marry one person. You can only marry people of a certain age (0-18 usually).
Goodness gracious
OMG... Pete Nice is really Jerry Lee Lewis.
really? you have to pick one thing...
... as the "bedrock of our society", and you choose heterosexual marriage?
there are many foundations to our society. and i would pick freedom, liberty, or equality. i would perhaps pick words out of the constitution, or it's many amendments. i would choose concept that protect people and give them rights, not those that took them away.
and if you had to go down that road, i would choose "family", in all of it's various permutations, over "marriage" between a man and a woman.
and i think those kids whose parents are fighting doma...? those kids deserve for their parents to be as equally recognized as yours or mine or the kids down the street.
doma hurts families. it protects nobody except a narrow-minded group of individuals who have hatred in their hearts and want to keep all the toys in the toybox for themselves.
gay marriage doesn't hurt you, and it certainly doesn't hurt society. our society is strongest when it's people are free to live and love whom they choose, and to have that choice respected.
Yes....
...family, in all its permutations, is far more the bedrock foundation of our society (and probably all others) than "heterosexual marriage".
Gay marriage a big bust
I supported it here in Massachusetts and my wife has yet to divorce me and take up with a woman. And they PROMISED it would destroy my marriage. Also, my daughters, to my widening horror, are hanging around with BOYS. Have you ever seen a teenage BOY around a teenage girl? Have you?
My faith is shattered. If you can't trust sputtering, grammar-challenged mouth-breathers, who can you trust?
You win a cookie
This post was very full of win.
Thanks
... for another empty promise. Still married, and now cookieless.
Sorry :(
United aganst gay marriage
Gay Marriage is a lost cause.. There is too much bi partisan support on both sides of the isle.. This is an issue that cuts across all racial and religious lines. The American people are united against gay marriage.. Polls after polls conclude this as well as the ballot box 32 for 32 !!
Broken record
I see we've reached the end of your vocabulary. The post you responded to wasn't even concerning you. Now I see you're nothing but a troll.
standing up
"It's one institution that crosses ethnic divides, that crosses partisan divides. ... People have stood up because they care about marriage and they care a great deal."
Fantasy Marriageball
Boy, you sure love your platitudes and truthy gems and everything that sounds so nice and tidy and gosh darn it American! Too bad the reality of marriage in human history and even US history doesn't conform to your "everybody just knows it was always just so" spew.
Learning the reality of the history of marriage might mean some actual reading and scholarship and learning though. Too bad you ain't up to it.
I say this as a straight person married for nearly 20 years. If you think marriage is in peril because gay people want it too, you need to SERIOUSLY seek some counseling for your own marriage because something ain't right if "not being gay" and "not having special privileges based on what is between your legs" is all you have to depend on to keep your family together.
Activits Judges!
This is tangential but since the activist judges comment has come up again (on the radio) I thought to add what I learned at the John Adams Courthouse several years ago. There was an exhibit that focused on the early courts of Massachusetts. One of the decisions was that slavery was wrong and unconstitutional.
A court, not the legislature, nor the executive, decided that slavery was wrong. The Quock Walker case resulted in banning slavery. So much for the so-called wrong of activist judges.
My fear is that this will become a Tea Bagger, Fundamentalist, anti-goverment, etc. cause for relecting Rightist fanatics. The worst case scenario of course would be if both houses of Congress went Republican and this then relit the fire for amending the Constitution to define marriage. Though the definition of marriage is a totally inappropriate issuse for the Constitution enough hysteria could propel the issue.
That is assuming that the Obama Administration does not appeal, and the Supreme Court (who, in the majority, probably would rather reinstitute Sodomy statutes and criminalize all but the missionary position), does not invalidate the ruling. Given the homophobic hysteria of Annie Scalia and Justice Uncle Tom, I can see their developing an impossibility convoluted argument which nevertheless invalidates the ruling.
I think the road toward full legal equality of Gay and Lesbian citizens continues to be long and difficult.
The one thing I can do however is to ask Obama to not appeal the decision. The administration is not required to appeal every court ruling. They can opt out of this one. Anyone who can email or call the White House and urge them to not appeal the decision.
They pretty much are required
They pretty much are required to appeal it, it's one of the DOJ's responsibilities. If they didn't, they could abuse their position by removing the court procedure from the process (aka: get someone to sue against every law they dont like, and then step back and not fight it).
ZOMG!1! I didn't realize it
ZOMG!1! I didn't realize it until now, but apparently my aunts' marriage (yay Vermont!) has been destroying heterosexual marriages for almost 30 years! And in that time Rush Limbaugh has only had four marriages?? And Newt Gingrich has only had three?? Oh, noes!
West, here's the relevant text from the 14th Amendment
Simple, isn't it. If you are a "person", you cannot be denied the "equal protection" of the law.
I.E., marriage equality means just that. All adult persons have the right to enjoy the rights, privileges, and benefits of state sanctioned marriage.
Thanks for playing, West. Vanna has some lovely parting gifts for you!
And really, I think it all
And really, I think it all comes down to one argument: religious marriage versus state-recognized marriage. If those who are so strongly opposed to same-sex marriage would equally fight to get all benefits that come with that legal union rescinded, I think we would have a real opportunity for dialogue. However, the state recognizes marriage with all sorts of benefits, and these "trickle down" to other private benefits as well.
For instance, my wife and I had a "paper wedding" nine months before our actual ceremony (neither of us are religious at all, fwiw). We did this because she was a student with no access to affordable health care, and my insurance would add her unless we had a piece of paper signed by an officiant that attested to the fact that we said some magic words in front of her. It didn't change a thing about our 7 year-old relationship in reality, but it was a benefit that was only available if we got married.
If the religious right would push as hard for the repeal of all tax, healthcare, child guardianship, estate planning, etc rights and privileges that come with marriage as they do against same-sex marriage, I would respect their stance a little more. As it is, they want to continue their religiously-based argument into a state-sponsored activity, and that's where I have a major problem. You can believe in the magic wonders of a book based on 5,000 year-old oral traditions of a nomadic tribe if you want, but don't make me do the same, 'mkay?
Well said
I was going to come down to this site with a well prepared, obscenity laden screed for some of the commenters who have used this discussion to lay down whatever far-out, obnoxious, smug and snippy comments they've had, but dang it, Craig, you took the wind out of my sails.
Marriage in this state has not crumbled into dust because Steve and Adam procured a marriage license, as did Eve and Abby. In fact, I can bet that those marriages are far more stable than the heterosexual marriages, and the spouses don't frame their marriage license like a deer's head after a hunt with Dick Cheney.
Narrow-mindedness, however, cuts both ways. Sure, you've got the religious right who want to define marriage as between man and woman, but the radical left also sees same-sex marriage as a social engineering Petri dish - that if they can get the public convinced that same-sex marriage is OK (which, in my honest opinion, doesn't bother me in the least and I do support it), the public will welcome other boffo ideas they might have, and any resistance to such lofty ideas will be met with swift and angry denouncement.
Should the government ask that the DOMA be struck down? I strongly suggest it should be rewitten to state that "anyone of sound mind and body, over the age of consent, who wishes to marry and name themselves as spouse to another shall be permitted to do so." Simple, covers all the bases, and gives carte blanche to anyone who wants to marry without a single thread of controversy. I think this is what Judge Tauro was attempting to do - he likely understands the religious right's defense of DOMA, but that's also contradicting the "free association" clause. Why say that only certain people can get married while others can't?
(For the record, I'm not married.)
"If those who are so strongly
"If those who are so strongly opposed to same-sex marriage would equally fight to get all benefits that come with that legal union rescinded, I think we would have a real opportunity for dialogue."
The problem is, those against gay marriage aren't just against gay marriage. Once marriage is taken off the table, these same people fight against gay civil unions.
And after that is accomplished ....
.... re-criminalization of homosexuality.