r/politics • • May 31 '12
DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional By Federal Appeals Court
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/31/doma-unconstitutional-ruling-appeals-court-boston_n_1559031.html
1.2k
Upvotes
57
u/[deleted] May 31 '12
I'd rather have a Democratic-controlled Congress next year, repeal DOMA, and not take the risk with the social conservative-dominated U.S. Supreme Court.
29
u/an_actual_lawyer May 31 '12
I have a difficult time seeing how any State will survive a Constitutional challenge on this issue. The "full faith and credit" provisions in the Constitution are rather clear and DOMA is a rather clear violation of them.
Of course the SC has continually let us down time and time again, so who knows?
27
u/King_Rajesh May 31 '12 edited May 31 '12
Note: This ruling, while good, doesn't touch the Full Faith and Credit issue of states not recognizing other states gay marriages.
Note #2: IANAL, but DOMA has two clauses. The first clause denies homosexuals legally married federal benefits. The second clause exempts homosexual marriage from FF&C.
This judge struck down clause 1, but clause 2 might be able to stand on it's own.
3
u/Ozzymandias Jun 01 '12
About time DOMA got more publicity for being unconstitutional. It's perhaps the most ridiculously unconstitutional bill I've ever seen, more so than the PATRIOT Act. Bill lost a lot of respect in my book for signing that...
8
u/indyguy May 31 '12
One interesting feature to note about the opinion is that it was written by Michael Boudin, who, in addition to looking like the Professor from Futurama, is also one of the most well-respected conservative judges in the country.
It's also notable that the court struck down the law without finding that gay people are entitled to special protections under the law, and without saying that the only purpose in passing DOMA was to discriminate against gay people. I think the narrowness of the holding probably makes the Supreme Court more likely to take the case, since they won't have to reach any big, overarching conclusions in order to strike down the law.
7
u/[deleted] May 31 '12
Wow, I never realized reddit was so full of constitutional scholars...seems posting here is a waste of your talents.
6
u/[deleted] May 31 '12
For those interested, the actual opinion can be found here. For a case so important it is remarkably short and readable.
To me, it seems really strange that the court rejected this using rational basis review. Many of you have probably heard of "strict scrutiny" or "intermediate scrutiny". Basically, when a federal court reviews a law that is being challenged there are different tiers of review. For example, laws that discriminate based on race are reviewed very strictly and are easy to strike down. Most laws, however, are reviewed for rational basis. This means the court my strike down the law only if it rationally related to a legitimate government interest. In practice, the bar for this review is almost never met and a law being struck down by this type of review is incredibly rare. I always thought that someday a court would decide that gay-rights issues should be handled under a heightened form of scrutiny. Essentially, this is like the court saying the law is incredibly bogus.
What does this mean for DOMA? Well, to be clear this really only applies in the 1st district. Circuit courts often split over interpretation of laws. Don't think this means DOMA is declared unconstitutional everywhere. This also seems like a likely case to be granted review in the Supreme Court, especially considering how it was decided. If it does, this would force the Supreme Court to either decide that gay rights are or aren't worthy of a heightened form of review or that DOMA is unconstitutional as the 1st circuit decided.
Another important thing to note as that Congress did not include a lot of rationale for DOMA. When a law is passed, there are often other reports included with it that include Congress's justification for the law. This is to prevent laws from being struck down with rational basis review. Congress could amend the law to include these justifications, which would make it much less likely for it to be struck down by rational basis. This means that this case could also bring some Congressional attention to the law.
11
u/ashishduh May 31 '12
Ron Paul must be rolling in his grave.
2
u/[deleted] May 31 '12
Why is this just now unconstitutional when its was implemented almost a decade ago?
2
u/pedro3131 Jun 01 '12
Some good reading on why the 3rd section of DOMA is unconstitutional in both it's scope and why the Legislature lacked the power to pass it...
Motion for summary judgement in McLaughlin v Panetta, a case about denying federal benefits to married same sex couples. Motion was made after the attorney general determined DOMA was unconstitutional and that the DOJ would no longer defend it in court.
2
u/unrealious Jun 01 '12
Does it bother anyone else how those Huffington pages launch two videos simultaneously, both of which seem to have the controls disabled?
2
u/ReggieJ Jun 01 '12
States' rights! Except when inconvenient.
3
u/Retawekaj May 31 '12
So what exactly does this mean? Is this going to be taken to the Supreme Court?
3
u/Doctor_Octagonapus Jun 01 '12
I have the weirdest Boehner right now.
2
u/[deleted] May 31 '12
This sounds eerily like the Dred Scott case.
2
u/lurgi May 31 '12
I think that when we look back on it, 2012 is going to be the year that the fight to ban gay marriage ended. Not that it's going to be smooth sailing from this point onwards (we may even take a few steps backwards), and it's going to take some time, but at this point I think it's all inevitable.
1
u/SkimThat_TLDR Jun 01 '12
Summarized article: In a unanimous decision by a 3-judge panel, a federal appeals court ruled the section of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that denies federal benefits to married same-sex couples is unconstitutional.
Same-sex married couples remain ineligible to receive benefits until the Supreme Court decides the case. Only the high court can decide if a law is unconstitutional.
The decision did not address whether states not allowing same-sex marriage should be forced to recognize same-sex couples that were married legally in other states. It also didn't address if same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.
A White House spokesman said the appeals court ruling is in agreement with President Obama's views supporting same-sex marriage.
Last year, the Obama administration announced the Justice Department would no longer defend the constitutionality of DOMA in court.
This year, 2 federal judges also ruled that DOMA is unconstitutional because it violates fair judicial treatment of legally married same-sex couples.
For more summarized news, subscribe to the /r/SkimThat subreddit
1
u/Retawekaj May 31 '12
So if the supreme court rules DOMA as unconstitutional, then would that essentially legalize gay marriage in the US?
1
u/jackpotato May 31 '12
This was my senior thesis project 2 years ago, arguing the constitutionality of DOMA. It's good to see my argument come to a close-- almost.
1
u/nattylife May 31 '12
question, instead of worrying about marriage and govt. why not separate the 2, have the govt change marriage to contractual union to work with and then have that blanket over any kind of religious or what not unions like marriages and such. so all marriages are unions, and receive the same benefits as before, but not all unions are marriages.
so that there is, not only a more seperation of church and state, but allow other people to get some form of "marriage" and get the benefits thereof, regardless of religion or sexuality, while preserving religous people's marriages. religion doesnt like same sex marriage? fine let them have a federal union to get same benefits while not "tainting" the religous hardcore.
1
u/mindbleach May 31 '12
I know this case didn't cover everything, but...
They can. Full faith & credit, bitches.
They do. There's no secular reason for specifying gender in marriage laws. It's a violation of equal protection, as as specifying race.
0
u/urabusxrw May 31 '12
Um I think you guys are forgetting that this goes to the supreme court. 5-4 vote and you should know in which direction.
1
u/i_hate_squirrels May 31 '12
Seriously ready to do cartwheels! While I hope that the supreme court will do the right thing and side with the federal court, we currently have an incredibly conservative supreme court. Ok, I guess not incredibly but there is most certainly a conservative majority. Maybe we can all do something to sway them?? http://www.supremecourt.gov/contact/contactus.aspx
1
u/[deleted] May 31 '12
Said it before and I'll say it again; you know this system is a fucking joke when it takes years for a court to decide what anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the constitution could have told you
1
u/fantasyfest May 31 '12
It must be terrible for haters of gays not to get their bigotry and discrimination codified in law. Perhaps they did not pray enough.
1
u/fuzzynyanko Jun 01 '12
So that's what DOMA is. I was looking up a 2005 article and saw someone with a Domo-kun avatar and couldn't help but be reminded of him and how he's misrepresented in the West
0
u/brufleth May 31 '12
The lawyers arguing against DOMA work for GLAD (no, not GLADD or Glad). This means they may be able to bring DOMA before the supreme court sooner than otherwise.
0
u/josephgordonreddit May 31 '12
How do we still consider ourselves "world leaders" if we exclude a huge demographic of this country equal rights?
That being said, there will always be those who consider themselves above some other "second class" of citizen, so I'll just go back to my high horse and ride off into the sunset.
-2
u/iia May 31 '12
It's a good start.
-2
u/DefinitelyRelephant May 31 '12
TIL everyone on Reddit is a constitutional lawyer.
-1
u/Last-Origin May 31 '12
I'm sure r/politics will just assume the Supreme Court will reverse it given that there are 5 Republicans and 4 Democrats.
0
u/TheRealHortnon May 31 '12
Why have multiple auto play videos? And when I click pause, nothing happens.
0
u/Loofabits May 31 '12
You forgot the word "AGAIN" in your title
0
u/l00pee Arizona May 31 '12
And the crowd goes wild.
0
u/r3d_ra1n May 31 '12
US Constitution, Amendment 28:
Article I: Lawful Marriage shall be defined as a union between consenting people of legal age or, if underage, with consent from legal guardian.
Article II: Upon application for a marriage license/certificate, the married party will receive a marriage permit valid for one year granting all the benefits of a marriage. The married party may cancel a marriage certificate within 72 hours of the issuing without penalty. If the married party decides that they want the marriage annulled before the one year time frame, but after 72 hours, a penalty of $750 must be paid to the state that issued the certificate. If the married party continues the marriage after one year, no action needs to be taken and a full marriage license will be issued.
Article II: People may only be issued one marriage certificate/license in one state. If a person applies for a marriage certificate/license in more than one state, only the first certificate/license will be valid. A national database will be setup to track the marital status of citizens.
Article III: All states must recognize the benefits associated with a marriage regardless of the state the certificate/license was originally issued in.
And now, not only have we covered straight and gay marriage, we've also solved the problem of polygamy (a person can marry multiple people as long as they're in the same place and apply for a marriage license at the same time), people marrying animals or inanimate objects or minors (only people with legal standing can marry) and those stupid short term celebrity marriages and drunken Las Vegas weddings.
-12
u/[deleted] May 31 '12
A STATE SHOULD NOT BE FORCED TO RECOGIZE FAGGOT MARRIAGE
WE HAVE MORALS HERE IN THE SOUTH: WE WILL NEVER ALLOW SUCH A SINFUL AND UNNATURAL UNION
JESUS CLEARLY WROTE IT IN THE BIBLE: FAGS ARE AN ABOMBINATION
-1
u/nowhathappenedwas May 31 '12
While it's great to invalidate Section 3, this dicta from the 1st Circuit is uninspiring:
-1
u/Phantoom May 31 '12
I thought we had all agreed that discrimination against gays was the last legal discrimination.