DOMA: Federal definition of marriage ruled unconstitutional by US Dist. Court judge

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#1
DOMA: Federal definition of marriage ruled unconstitutional by U.S. District Court judge

Wednesday, February 22nd, 2012
by Ruth Fine

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled Wednesday that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional. The order comes in wake of a lawsuit filed by Karen Golinski, a federal court employee, based on the denial of equal health insurance benefits by her employer, California‘s Office of Personnel Management.

The win will order the federal government to extend health benefits to Golinski’s same-sex spouse.

U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey S. White, who oversaw the case, explained in court papers:

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.

Further explaining:

The Court finds that neither Congress’ claimed legislative justifications nor any of the proposed reasons proffered by BLAG constitute bases rationally related to any of the alleged governmental interests. Further, after concluding that neither the law nor the record can sustain any of the interests suggested, the Court, having tried on its own, cannot conceive of any additional interests that DOMA might further.
Finally, White added:

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.
White concluded that DOMA, as it relates to Golinski’s case, “violates her right to equal protection of the law under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” adding that “the statute fails to satisfy heightened scrutiny and is unconstitutional as applied to Ms. Golinski.”

The ruling is a victory for LGBT activists and allies. Lambda Legal, Golinski’s counsel, celebrated the win alongside their client.

“This ruling, the first to come after the Justice Department announced it would no longer defend this discriminatory statute in court, spells doom for DOMA,” said Tara Borelli, lead counsel. “The Court recognized the clear fact that a law that denies one class of individuals the rights and benefits available to all others because of their sexual orientation violates the constitutional guarantee of equality embodied in the Fifth Amendment.”

Wednesday’s ruling is the first of its kind since U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced last year the Administration would no longer defend legal challenges arising from the Defense of Marriage Act in court.

http://lgbtweekly.com/2012/02/22/do...unconstitutional-by-u-s-district-court-judge/
Looks like it's headed for the SCOTUS...
 

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
Aug 25, 2008
54,127
12,916
373
Atlanta, GA
#4
The equal protection issue was well represented, but the article made no mention of the Tenth Amendment issue.
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,628
5,081
568
Wyoming
#5
Why don't you post that Youtube video of Obama saying he's against gay marriage again.......
Nah, I think I'll post the part of the Constitution where it defines what the President does:

Article 2 - The Executive Branch
Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
Where do you think the term "executive" comes from? It's not the president (or the Attorney General's) job to decide which laws it can and can't enforce. That's Congress's job.

But like I said, Holder and Obama are too busy running guns to the Mexicans and destroying the economy to do their actual jobs.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#6
Nah, I think I'll post the part of the Constitution where it defines what the President does:

Where do you think the term "executive" comes from? It's not the president (or the Attorney General's) job to decide which laws it can and can't enforce. That's Congress's job.
You forgot that little oath he swore on. "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

That's his "out" if he thinks it's unconstitutional. Plenty of precedent of others doing the same thing.

Nice try on the deflection though...
 

gleet

What's black and white and red all over?
Jul 24, 2005
22,543
13,852
608
Idaho
#7
You forgot that little oath he swore on. "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

That's his "out" if he thinks it's unconstitutional. Plenty of precedent of others doing the same thing.

Nice try on the deflection though...
He didn't say that.

Roberts, one of former President George W. Bush's appointees on the high court, led the way. But, when he reached the phrase, "that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States,'' Roberts at first omitted the word "faithfully'' - he re-inserted it after "president of the United States.''

Obama paused, not taking the miscue at first.

So Roberts repeated the phrase correctly, inserting "faithfully" in the right order: "faithfully execute the office of president of the United States."

Yet Obama then repeated Roberts' original misstatement - "the office of president of the United States faithfully."
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,628
5,081
568
Wyoming
#9
You forgot that little oath he swore on.
So is he apparently.

And the Constitution has no provision for the president doing anything about unconstitutional laws. That's why it says to "faithfully" execute the laws.

This isn't a deflection. It's pointing out that the reason this law was overturned is because the President didn't do his fucking job. This time the result isn't a bad thing, but it in itself sets a very bad precedent.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#10
So is he apparently.

And the Constitution has no provision for the president doing anything about unconstitutional laws. That's why it says to "faithfully" execute the laws.

This isn't a deflection. It's pointing out that the reason this law was overturned is because the President didn't do his fucking job. This time the result isn't a bad thing, but it in itself sets a very bad precedent.
You really think he's the first president to not defend a law he thought was unconstitutional?
 

mills

I'll give em a state, a state of unconsciousness
Jan 30, 2005
13,849
638
628
Flea Bottom
#12
[yt]wH71xilxW5A[/yt]

I know, boo. But the spics never annunciate their consonants. Ever.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#13

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,628
5,081
568
Wyoming
#14
Glad to see they cite Gun Lord Holder as their source of why it's Constitutional. Yeah, you probably should have just held off on that one.

And yes, it's run by Media Matters. Big surprise there.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#15
Glad to see they cite Gun Lord Holder as their source of why it's Constitutional. Yeah, you probably should have just held off on that one.
I thought this would have trumped the Holder stuff...:action-sm

Also, President Ronald Reagan. In INS v. Chadha, the Reagan administration was actively involved in arguing that a law passed by Congress was unconstitutional
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#17
Except the "X did it so Y can do it too" argument is bogus. You don't seem to understand that the conservative minded folks here aren't blind supporters of a party like you are.
Now, most of them aren't. Just you.

And that's not what you asked.
Do you have proof he's not the first to publicly refuse to uphold a law?
I showed you easily verifiable cases where he wasn't and you just had to bitch about the source, like I knew you would.
 

Your_Moms_Box

Free Shit / Socialism 2016
Dec 20, 2004
5,755
468
628
Dover, Delaware
#19
defelct deflect deflect.

talking point talking point talking point

deflect deflect deflect


Are DTT & Kirk brothers (or the same person)
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,628
5,081
568
Wyoming
#20
Do you even know what the word deflect means?

Nah, probably not.

I've directly addressed every single issue here.
 

Your_Moms_Box

Free Shit / Socialism 2016
Dec 20, 2004
5,755
468
628
Dover, Delaware
#21
I guess Holder was too busy selling guns to drug cartels to do his job.
But like I said, Holder and Obama are too busy running guns to the Mexicans and destroying the economy to do their actual jobs.
Do you have proof he's not the first to publicly refuse to uphold a law?
de·flect/diˈflekt/
Verb:
Cause (something) to change direction by interposing something; turn aside from a straight course.


See.. right there, all three of those are deflections.

You aren't directly addressing the issue, you are trying to deflect onto some other subject you think you have a better chance of proving your point on.