DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional. Again.

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional. Again.

    Cue the "liberal activist judge" conserv-ysteria drool in 3...2...1...

    Except this judge was appointed by George W. Bush, so go figure.  Some details:

    Today, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued its order finding that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act -- the federal definition of marriage -- is unconstitutional in Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management, Karen Golinski's challenge to the denial of her request for equal health insurance benefits for her wife.


    Golinski, a federal court employee, brought suit after her request was denied. She is represented by Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. Because President Obama and the Department of Justice have stopped defending Section 3 of DOMA in court challenges, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group -- led by House Republican leadership -- had opposed Golinski's request in court.


    In part, U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey S. White today found that Section 3 of DOMA violates the equal protection rights of Golinski, finding that heightened scrutiny applies -- as urged by the DOJ -- and noting that it might not even pass rational basis -- the lowest -- legal scrutiny:

    The Court concludes that, based on the justifications proffered by Congress for its passage of DOMA, the statute fails to satisfy heightened scrutiny and is unconstitutional as applied to Ms. Golinski.
    Although the Court finds that DOMA is subject to and fails to satisfy heightened scrutiny, it notes that numerous courts have found that the statute fails even rational basis review.

    ...

    The Court has found that DOMA unconstitutionally discriminates against same-sex married couples. Even though animus is clearly present in its legislative history, the Court, having examined that history, the arguments made in its support, and the effects of the law, is persuaded that something short of animus may have motivated DOMA’s passage:

    Prejudice, we are beginning to understand, rises not from malice or hostile animus alone. It may result as well from insensitivity caused by simple want of careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves.

    Board of Trustees of University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 374-75 (2001) (Kennedy, J., concurring).

    ...

    In this matter, the Court finds that DOMA, as applied to Ms. Golinski, violates her right to equal protection of the law under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution by, without substantial justification or rational basis, refusing to recognize her lawful marriage to prevent provision of health insurance coverage to her spouse.

    Accordingly, the Court issues a permanent injunction enjoining defendants, and those acting at their direction or on their behalf, from interfering with the enrollment of Ms. Golinski's wife in her family health benefits plan.
    ********************

    Emphasis mine.  And it should be noted that a particular decision NOT to defend the constitutionality of the law in court in this case may have proven to be pivotal in the judicial b*tch slap of the House GOP's BLAG (and by Lambda Legal).

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BetheKoolaid. Show BetheKoolaid's posts

    Re: DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional. Again.

    Is there anything left that a moonbat 9th Circus judge hasn't ruled unconstitutional?

    Something in the water out there...even judges appointed by Republicans.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional. Again.

    In Response to Re: DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional. Again.:
    [QUOTE]Is there anything left that a moonbat 9th Circus judge hasn't ruled unconstitutional? Something in the water out there...even judges appointed by Republicans.
    Posted by BetheKoolaid[/QUOTE]

    As usual, you miss the point.  Check it:

    "might not pass even rational basis legal scrutiny"


    This isn't just the Prop. 8 hoopla.  This is the sound of federal statute being crushed on the basis that the law is discriminatory.

    Some observers are now just counting down until DOMA is gone for good.  I say three years, tops.

    Maybe it starts with all federal employees' benefits.  Then contractors working for the fed.  Then state employees....
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from BetheKoolaid. Show BetheKoolaid's posts

    Re: DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional. Again.

    In Response to Re: DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional. Again.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional. Again. :
    Well, 1. You f**ked up completely: " the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California "


    No, I didnt.
    The federal district court for the Northern District of California is located within  the federal Ninth Circuit, er, Circus.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional. Again.

    In Response to Re: DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional. Again.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional. Again. : [QUOTE]In Response to Re: DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional. Again. : Well, 1. You f**ked up completely: " the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California " No, I didnt. The federal district court for the Northern District of California is located within  the federal Ninth Circuit, er, Circus.
    Posted by BetheKoolaid[/QUOTE]

    Instead of talking aimlessly about "moonbats" why don't you show how the decision is wrong.  In other words, can you come up with a rational basis for dentying this group equal protection under the law?  Can you identify a harm that would be caused if we extended marriage rights to gays?  If not, all you have is bigotry.  That is a lot worse than moonbattery.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional. Again.

    In Response to Re: DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional. Again.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional. Again. : Instead of talking aimlessly about "moonbats" why don't you show how the decision is wrong.  In other words, can you come up with a rational basis for dentying this group equal protection under the law?  Can you identify a harm that would be caused if we extended marriage rights to gays?  If not, all you have is bigotry.  That is a lot worse than moonbattery.
    Posted by Reubenhop[/QUOTE]

    Can't wait to hear bobin's response to this one.

    To date, I have yet to hear any rational argument from the opposition.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from BetheKoolaid. Show BetheKoolaid's posts

    Re: DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional. Again.

    'To date, I have yet to hear any rational argument from the opposition.'


     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional. Again.

    In Response to Re: DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional. Again.:
    [QUOTE]'To date, I have yet to hear any rational argument from the opposition.'
    Posted by BetheKoolaid[/QUOTE]

    ...because there isn't one.


    Weak dodge.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional. Again.

    I've always thought DOMA was a stupid defensive approach.  Horse out of the barn and all that.

    The much better answer is that there is no "right" to get married for anyone.  Society makes determinations about what it sees as best for a healthy orderly society.

    As far as the real marriage, that which is a church sacrament, that is between a man and a woman, though the day is soon upon us when government will try to make churches marry gay people.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional. Again.

    In Response to Re: DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional. Again.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional. Again. : Is that an odd way of saying that government should grant any two people a Civil Union and get out of "marriage" entirely, leaving "marriage" to religious institutions? I can get behind that. I don't care what the government chooses to call my marriage, so long as homosexuals can enjoy the same privilege to "it", whatever "it" may be called.
    Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow[/QUOTE]

    Sure, that works, sort of.

    However, I think the standard, however, is the high standard:  i.e. demonstrated benefit to society, not the low standard of manufactured "rights".


    On that, I am sure we will disagree.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from BetheKoolaid. Show BetheKoolaid's posts

    Re: DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional. Again.

     "The power to regulate marriage lies with the Legislature, not with the judiciary."

    A dissenter in the Mass gay marriage decision put it well:
    Justice Sosman: 
    "[a]bsent consensus on the issue (which obviously does not exist), or unanimity amongst scientists studying the issue (which also does not exist), or a more prolonged period of observation of this new family structure (which has not yet been possible), it is rational for the Legislature to postpone any redefinition of marriage that would include same-sex couples until such time as it is certain that redefinition will not have unintended and undesirable social consequences."

    Gay marriage advocates claim those who oppose gay marriage are bigots. And that there is no rational reason to oppose gay marriage. And that preventing gays marrying is identical to racial-miscegenation laws.  
    Wrong on all counts. 

    Abortion was not a major issue prior to Roe v Wade. Liberal states had liberal abortion policies, conservative states did not. Since Roe v Wade, it as been a cultural war, since courts acted as legislators and imposed a result.
    Judicial activism is wrong and dangerous.
     Similarly, gay marriage is unpopular in part because the public understandably resents having no say in the matter, and having it imposed by  judges. Also, calling opponents bigots doesnt win points either.

    Gay marriage proponents are true zealots; they want the result, they seemingly dont care if they trample on the rule of law to get it. 

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional. Again.

    In Response to Re: DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional. Again.:
    [QUOTE] "The power to regulate marriage lies with the Legislature, not with the judiciary." A dissenter in the Mass gay marriage decision put it well: Justice Sosman:  "[a]bsent consensus on the issue (which obviously does not exist), or unanimity amongst scientists studying the issue (which also does not exist), or a more prolonged period of observation of this new family structure (which has not yet been possible), it is rational for the Legislature to postpone any redefinition of marriage that would include same-sex couples until such time as it is certain that redefinition will not have unintended and undesirable social consequences." Gay marriage advocates claim those who oppose gay marriage are bigots. And that there is no rational reason to oppose gay marriage. And that preventing gays marrying is identical to racial-miscegenation laws.   Wrong on all counts.  Abortion was not a major issue prior to Roe v Wade. Liberal states had liberal abortion policies, conservative states did not. Since Roe v Wade, it as been a cultural war, since courts acted as legislators and imposed a result. Judicial activism is wrong and dangerous.  Similarly, gay marriage is unpopular in part because the public understandably resents having no say in the matter, and having it imposed by  judges. Also, calling opponents bigots doesnt win points either. Gay marriage proponents are true zealots; they want the result, they seemingly dont care if they trample on the rule of law to get it. 
    Posted by BetheKoolaid[/QUOTE]

    So where is the rational argument? Let's wait and see....?  How can you wait for one to appear when you are not allowing the right to exist. But wait... we have had gay marriage in Massachusetts for several years now so there MUST be such evidence now... And yet there isn't. So all you have is bigotry. And you have the nerve to call prejudice the "rule of law". That's pretty nervy. And irrational. Shame on you.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional. Again.

    In Response to Re: DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional. Again.:
    [QUOTE]I've always thought DOMA was a stupid defensive approach.  Horse out of the barn and all that. The much better answer is that there is no "right" to get married for anyone.  Society makes determinations about what it sees as best for a healthy orderly society. As far as the real marriage, that which is a church sacrament, that is between a man and a woman, though the day is soon upon us when government will try to make churches marry gay people.
    Posted by skeeter20[/QUOTE]

    The Supreme Court begs to differ.  Read up on substantive due process.  I will take years of Constitutional jurisprudence on this issue as opposed to your personal take on things.  Sorry, you lose.
     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from altonjones. Show altonjones's posts

    Re: DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional. Again.

    In Response to Re: DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional. Again.:
    [QUOTE]I'm so sick of hearing about gay marriage and gay this and that, DOMA and DADT, etc. etc. The country is headed to a financial train wreck within a couple of years barring a major miracle of economic growth. The tax increases from Obamacare next year are enough to wipe out all of the progress we have made on borrowed money for the last couple of years. ANd we are still talking about gays and abortion. Lord help me.
    Posted by Newtster[/QUOTE]

    I totally agree, as Kinky (big-d!ck) Friedman once said....

    "I fully support gay marriage, they have every right to be just as miserable as the rest of us"!
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional. Again.

    In Response to Re: DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional. Again.:
    [QUOTE]I'm so sick of hearing about gay marriage and gay this and that, DOMA and DADT, etc. etc. The country is headed to a financial train wreck within a couple of years barring a major miracle of economic growth. The tax increases from Obamacare next year are enough to wipe out all of the progress we have made on borrowed money for the last couple of years. ANd we are still talking about gays and abortion. Lord help me.
    Posted by Newtster[/QUOTE]

    Culture Wars seem to be the major focus of your conservative leadership. What's their economic plan?  More tax cuts with an exploding deficit?  No wonder they only want to talk about contraception, abortion and gay marriage.  They have nothing else.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional. Again.

    In Response to Re: DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional. Again.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional. Again. : So where is the rational argument? Let's wait and see....?  How can you wait for one to appear when you are not allowing the right to exist. But wait... we have had gay marriage in Massachusetts for several years now so there MUST be such evidence now... And yet there isn't. So all you have is bigotry. And you have the nerve to call prejudice the "rule of law". That's pretty nervy. And irrational. Shame on you.
    Posted by Reubenhop[/QUOTE]


    It is because marriage is not a "right" for anyone.  The state decides the parameters of marriage to the benefit of society, the state decides who can be married through the legislative process.  Sounds very contract and regulation oriented, not rights oriented. 

    Note we are talking about marriage as far as government is concerned, not churches.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional. Again.

    In Response to Re: DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional. Again.:
    [QUOTE]Sorry, not the standard. You don't get to invent your own rules.
    Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow[/QUOTE]


    See?  I said we would disagree.

    I'm not setting my own rules, you are!  you think the standard for government is the low bar, it is not.  Is not the constitution a high standard?  Is not the call of government in general to uphold a high standard?

    If not, we all are in trouble.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional. Again.

    In Response to Re: DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional. Again.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional. Again. : Culture Wars seem to be the major focus of your conservative leadership. What's their economic plan?  More tax cuts with an exploding deficit?  No wonder they only want to talk about contraception, abortion and gay marriage.  They have nothing else.
    Posted by Reubenhop[/QUOTE]


    Sure, it's the focus of conservatives because:

    * conservatives pushed for abortion, oh, wait, that was liberals.

    * conservatives pushed for gay marriage, oh, that was liberals, too.

    * conservatives pushed for churches to offer contraception,  ugh, I am so disappointed.  that was the liberals again.

    * but, surely it is conservatives who are pushing for legalization of dope?  Oh, no.  Other than a few loose cannons, that is decidedly a liberal push as well.  I could go on.

    Seems like it is the left that is fixated on changing the culture, starting culture wars,and not for the betterment of society.
     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional. Again.

    In Response to Re: DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional. Again.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional. Again. : It is because marriage is not a "right" for anyone.  The state decides the parameters of marriage to the benefit of society, the state decides who can be married through the legislative process.  Sounds very contract and regulation oriented, not rights oriented.  Note we are talking about marriage as far as government is concerned, not churches.
    Posted by skeeter20[/QUOTE]

    You can keep saying marriage is not a right until you are blue in the face, but it still does not make it true.  The Supreme Court says it is a right and they are smarter than you on the subject.  You lose.

    http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/righttomarry.htm
     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional. Again.

    In Response to Re: DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional. Again.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional. Again. : Sure, it's the focus of conservatives because: * conservatives pushed for abortion, oh, wait, that was liberals. * conservatives pushed for gay marriage, oh, that was liberals, too. * conservatives pushed for churches to offer contraception,  ugh, I am so disappointed.  that was the liberals again. * but, surely it is conservatives who are pushing for legalization of dope?  Oh, no.  Other than a few loose cannons, that is decidedly a liberal push as well.  I could go on. Seems like it is the left that is fixated on changing the culture, starting culture wars,and not for the betterment of society.
    Posted by skeeter20[/QUOTE]

    You are missing the point. Conservatives are trying vainly to hold onto antiquated and irrational notions as other groups seek individual rights and freedom. And conservatives have the nerve to pretend that they are the group that opposes government inteference in individual freedom! You only like freedom if you get to define it. But it is all good as Satan is at work and he must be opposed at any cost.   Frauds and fools make splendid company in the conservative fold.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional. Again.

    In Response to Re: DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional. Again.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional. Again. : It is only Sanscrotum that wants to talk about that rubbish, aside from those in the press that like to direct the conversation that way because it suits their agenda. More tax cuts with an exploding deficit? That's your Presidents plan so far isn't it? He extended the Bush Tax Cuts "for the rich", and the payroll tax cut. He is the one with the record deficits that just keep growing.  He's never had a deficit under a trillion so what the bleep are you talking about "cut taxes and explode the deficit"???. What a crock. And all without a budget? WHERE THE F IS HIS PLAN???? Oh those are the ones that even Democrats do not want to vote on -- political tricks from your hero. Seems like you are off in your assessment.
    Posted by Newtster[/QUOTE]

    Still waiting on the conservative alternative...  Criticism without creativity gets us no where.
     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share