2nd Circuit Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs
In May, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. This morning, yet another federal appeals bench reached the same conclusion.
A federal appeals court in Manhattan has become the second in the nation to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling Thursday. The decision upholds a lower court judge who ruled that the 1996 law that defines marriage as involving a man and a woman was unconstitutional. The three-judge panel says the law violates equal protection.
The entire ruling is online here (pdf).
There's a particular interest in the judges issuing these ruling, in large part because their ideology would seem to point in a less progressive direction. At the 1st Circuit, for example, the decision was written by Judge Mike Boudin, a traditional conservative appointed by George H.W. Bush, who was the deputy assistant Attorney General in the Reagan administration.
At the 2nd Circuit, the ruling was written by Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs, widely seen as a very conservative jurist. Ian Millhiser, noting today's ruling, added, "Jacobs is not simply saying that DOMA imposes unique and unconstitutional burdens on gay couples, he is saying that any attempt by government to discriminate against gay people must have an 'exceedingly persuasive' justification."
It is widely assumed that the matter will be ultimately be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court. For now, however, it's another legal victory for proponents of marriage equality.
Leave a Comment:
tear done this wall , mr (place name here)
That would be,
"Justice Roberts, tear down this wall!"
At least it's progress! Our country has been very slow in providing civil rights to all.
Unfortunately, for too many people, equal rights for all is anathema.
Political gay-bashing is unconstitutional? Who knew?
We don't have a say in how others choose to live their lives. Stop worrying about everyone else's business, and worry about your own. I believe, love who you like, it's none of my business.
This should make the loonies of the Repugnut party crazier tonight!!!
"...must have an 'exceedingly persuasive' justification."
IMHO that translates to- 'attempts at social engineering through politics just isn't enough.."
It's a start....
Those damned unelected judges ruling in favor of equality and common sense; what will be next, women as equal in all ways under the law, voting as a right or even a right to privacy.
I doubt this will ever get to SCOTUS as the appellate rulings, so far, do not clash.
Since the House (or is it both the house and the senate) is paying for the legal challenge with someone else's money (the taxpayers'), I see no reason for them to stop now. They probably know that no matter what they do Scalia will vote in their favor.
The problem isn't in Scalia voting in the House's favor. If it reaches the Supreme Court, the larger looming question for conservatives is. Will Chief Justice Roberts vote in their favor.
I'm more inclined to think that Roberts will vote the same as the lower Court Judges in this matter. Somewhere between the Citizens United ruling and the ruling for the ACA. Roberts seriously thinking about the integrity of not only his rulings, but the Supreme Court as a whole. And for whatever reason, I just can't see Roberts being "That Guy who said, only certain American Citizens have the basic right to get married."
If this case reaches the Supreme Court, it while have the same meaning and impact as Women's Right to Vote and The Civil Rights Act. I think Roberts is smart enough to realize that, and is not going to have his legacy saying he was the guy that said no, or was "on the wrong side of history", on this issue.
Undecided voters?
We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal...
The "Boston Teaparty" was an act committed by people who felt that taxation without representation was fundamentally wrong. Today, people calling themselves the "Teaparty" are, ironically, making a concerted effort to disenfranchise millions of American citizens. Their efforts are being funded and orchestrated by people with vast fortunes who feel they are entitled by Divine Right to rule over lesser creatures.
Sen. McCain; why would the countries in the middle east, or anywhere, listen to a president encouraging them to adopt a representative style of government after seeing him tacitly (if not actively) supporting attempts to deny his own citizens the right to vote?
Anyone named Bush or Akin; how are you going to convince the Taliban that a theocracy is inherently self destructive when you support efforts to deny women the right to make choices about their own health? Do you really think it is ok to shoot fourteen year-olds in the head because their world view is different than yours?
Undecideds? How can any American be undecided?
On November 7, I better not run across anybody who says they were registered to vote as a Democrat and didn't vote. They better have their track shoes on and b e able to call 9-1-1 while they're on the run.
I also find this ruling interesting (and timely) because of Romney's stance toward gay marriage, namely how he donated $10,000 to the National Organization for Marriage back in 2008 from his Free and Strong America political action committee to show his support for Prop 8.
The problem I have always had with DOMA and many of the arguments against same sex marriage is that many of the proponents when asked will base their argument on their belief that marriage is a sacrament. If it is a sacrament then it is by its very definition the purview of the church and not the government.
Following that logic all "marriages" conducted by the government are unconstitutional and must be classified as "Civil Unions" since the only interest the government has in the issue is financial (taxes, property rights etc.).
Any justice who considers themselves a "Strict Constructionist" must consider it in that light or they will be "Legislating from the bench"
Hey Honey,
Remember how we got married by a Judge 20 years ago?
I guess it doesn't count.
(boy, that could cut both ways)
Individual churches of course have the option not to perform or recognize gay marriage. Or even the re-marriage of a divorced heterosexual. Marriage not performed in a church is not a sacrament.
As far as the government is concerned, marriage is a legal contract. It conveys spousal rights, tax advantages, etc. And that is the basis of these lawsuits.
I once asked a friend of mine who opposes same-sex marriage as a "threat" to traditional marriage what he thought of two older people, past child-bearing years, who marry for the security of knowing there would be someone advocating for their interests when the time came they no longer could themselves, who marry for the financial security of combining two smaller incomes than they used to have, to create an "existing income" (i.e., one you can exist on) for two, where "love" was perhaps the last thing thought of and procreation had nothing to do with it, whether that marriage "threatened" the marriage of anyone who married for the "traditional" reasons. His response was that it didn't since he didn't know anything about them. I then said I had just described myself, so now he knew. Did my marriage - performed by the city clerk - have any effect on his marriage, performed by a minister in his megachurch? No, it didn't. I then asked if any other marriage would threaten his marriage. At that point, he no longer had an answer. (BTW - this "marriage of convenience" has now lasted longer than the two "for love" combined)
And thus my point. Be careful what you wish for and more importantly how you wish for it. Its either a constructionist issue which is fundamentally flawed or its a president and tradition issue. The problem with that line of argument is that things like denying women's suffrage, bans on interracial marriage, segregation, even slavery have all been defended from that position, and from a legal standpoint in this country its not a good one to be in.
It's about time they start realizing that the Bible has been rewritten to give a very few the audacity to think that they could seperate God from all of his children. Nowhere in the original oldest Bible that I could lay my hands on, does it say that homosexuality is a sin. Not even Paul the Apostle originally said that in any of his letters.
This ruling may change things in the Presidential Race when Mitt Romney is asked "The court just ruled that DOMA is unconstitutional what do you think about the ruling ?"
You actually think he'll respond, I'll bet ya $10,000.00 that he dodges? Haha
How does this affect the Bachmanns?
Who cares? She is an opportunists who is having a hard time holding onto anyones shirtail. Her book will be out next month. I heard her and Palin are gonna get together and form a band. Where's John Belushi, when you need him, time to get the band together. Another mission from Gad.
"I heard her and Palin are gonna get together and form a band"
What are they gonna call it Bible Spice and the Hollyrollers?
"I heard her and Palin are gonna get together and form a band"
The bands name?
"Casting Thee Devil"
Thats a double entendre. at least
.
Odd thing "marriage". Always been a legal agreement formalized by someone of "The Cloth" unless done by a Judge.
You think marriage is a religious thing? Try getting a divorce by saying "I don't, not any more!" in front of the Preacher.
Good luck with that.
And some judges won't even hear a case unless there are attorneys involved.
So marriage being a religious affair? Not freaking Hardly.
.
I'm not comfortable calling homosexual unions marriage because ... You know, I really don't know why. I'm just uncomfortable.
But,
I know unless homosexual unions are called and seen as marriage there is too much wiggle room for those outside the union to have a say.
As an example, my mother has been an RN since the '70s. Back then Mom told me about life time partners being kept apart in the ICU by the family because the person in the beds family didn't approve of the relationship.
Whats more is the life partner of the person in the bed knew the person in the beds wishes but because the person in the bed was incapacitated to some degree the family could make directives of their choosing.
And Mom said there were times the directives delivered by the family seemed in revenge for the person in the beds homosexuality.
So I've had near 40 years of the occasional thought about these situations and how committed partners that had been together longer than many heterosexual marriages had no recourse to these types of injustices.
So while I'm not comfortable calling homosexual unions "marriage" in the name of humanity homosexual unions must be called and considered marriage.
I'll get over it. So should the Right Wing.
.
My oldest friend in the world (since the first day of Kindergarten), "came out" publicly at the 40th year reunion of high school graduation, attending with his partner. He and his partner have been together successfully for longer than all three of my marriages (they're going on 30 years now). Yet they cannot marry. He is fortunate to have a family that was supportive, so his partner was able to use the convoluted legal arrangement they were able to cobble together to deal with things while he was in a coma from the brain cancer he is now battling. How a union like that threatens anyone with anything other than a perfect example of how "till death do us part" is supposed to work is beyond me.
Dinesh D'Souza. There. I said it. His new "fiancee" feels quite threatened by same sex marriage. So threatened, she is threatening to marry a clod. Falling on her sword for all of us, she is selfless...
She's actually willing to marry a bigamist, since he was identifying her as his "fiancee" before he had even started divorce proceedings. Or was he just following the "Romney example"???
I just read that the "fiancee" is also still married. Great couple, nice to have over for parties.
How long did it take to declare "prohibiton" unconstitutional? 13 years.
DOMA unconstitutional? Well, it was signed into law in 1996, 16 years ago. But you know… alcohol legality is much more popular than concern over full and equal protection of the laws for all.
http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/ViewNews.aspx?id=49508
People were in a panic about Hawaii possibly marrying same sex couples and preemptively pushed for DADT, DOMA because they couldn't get a Constitutional amendment done, but they are still trying very hard to make sure there is no equality in the laws for those they disapprove.
Courts are for determining if laws are consistent with equal protection of the laws for all.
This should be very important to LGBTQ and friends, because Rmoney would appoint a Justice that would overturn Roe and find a way to block equal protection of the laws from "certain people".
If Romney became president, it's not just Roe that could be overturned after he appoints his two or more justices. I would expect that if a reliably right-wing court were in place that very quickly we could see Lawrence v. Texas overturned. And I wouldn't hold out much hope for Loving v. Virginia, Brown v. Board, or indeed any progressive decision handed down since the late '30s. Republican objections to 'unelected judges' would melt away in a heartbeat if they get the chance to finish remaking the Supreme Court in their own warped image.
Bishop Romney has other beliefs,,,