Thread: New ruling: Descrimination of gay marriage unconstitutional!!

U.S. Judge Rules Federal Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

The federal law banning gay marriage is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define the institution and therefore denies married gay couples some federal benefits, a federal judge ruled Thursday in Boston.

U.S. District Judge Joseph ruled in favor of gay couples' rights in two separate challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, a 1996 law that the Obama administration has argued for repealing. The rulings apply to Massachusetts but could have broader implications if they're upheld on appeal.

The state had argued the law denied benefits such as Medicaid to gay married couples in Massachusetts, where same-sex unions have been legal since 2004.

Tauro agreed and said the act forces Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens in order to be eligible for federal funding in federal-state partnerships.

The act "plainly encroaches" upon the right of the state to determine marriage, Tauro said in his ruling on a lawsuit filed by state Attorney General Martha Coakley. In a ruling in a separate case filed by Gays & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, Tauro ruled the act violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

FOXNews.com - U.S. Judge Rules Federal Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

Liberals have been saying this for a very long time.. Nice to see that the law is starting to listen.. Interesting that they used the 10th amendment to make this ruling.. Conservatives have been screaming for decades about state rights.. Especially states like Texas.. Well.. It is about damn time that amendment was used against them about an issue they do not like..

I am happy for this ruling!! We shouldn't be descriminating against our own people on any issue..

I think this thread may need to be moved to Social and Civil rights, Sexuality..

I am still a bit confused as to where certain things go.. Sorry..

Seems like a bass ackwards way of giving people a little human dignity. But I guess whatever gets it done.

Originally Posted by Inspector Gently

Seems like a bass ackwards way of giving people a little human dignity. But I guess whatever gets it done.

ROFL!! I know right!!

While federalism is a great approach for controversial issues like this, I don't really think elements of DOMA work, Constitutionally, with respect to full faith and credit. Of course, there's a lot of issues with full faith and credit to be had... New York would partially recognize my professional license but I'd have to go through paperwork hell if I wanted to work there; it would recognize my TX driver's license, but it wouldn't recognize my Texas concealed carry license...

The 10th Amendment needs a fair sight more respect and I wish there were more rulings about it on a variety of matters. The Feds ignore it utterly and do whatever the hell they want to do.


That said, on the other hand, by no means can anyone earnestly suggest that the Constitution as written was intended to dictate the legality of homosexual marriage on a federal level.

Originally Posted by MajikMyst

U.S. Judge Rules Federal Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

The federal law banning gay marriage is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define the institution and therefore denies married gay couples some federal benefits, a federal judge ruled Thursday in Boston.

U.S. District Judge Joseph ruled in favor of gay couples' rights in two separate challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, a 1996 law that the Obama administration has argued for repealing. The rulings apply to Massachusetts but could have broader implications if they're upheld on appeal.

The state had argued the law denied benefits such as Medicaid to gay married couples in Massachusetts, where same-sex unions have been legal since 2004.

Tauro agreed and said the act forces Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens in order to be eligible for federal funding in federal-state partnerships.

The act "plainly encroaches" upon the right of the state to determine marriage, Tauro said in his ruling on a lawsuit filed by state Attorney General Martha Coakley. In a ruling in a separate case filed by Gays & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, Tauro ruled the act violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

FOXNews.com - U.S. Judge Rules Federal Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

Liberals have been saying this for a very long time.. Nice to see that the law is starting to listen.. Interesting that they used the 10th amendment to make this ruling.. Conservatives have been screaming for decades about state rights.. Especially states like Texas.. Well.. It is about damn time that amendment was used against them about an issue they do not like..

I am happy for this ruling!! We shouldn't be descriminating against our own people on any issue..

It's a good step!

Originally Posted by JayDubya

While federalism is a great approach for controversial issues like this, I don't really think elements of DOMA work, Constitutionally, with respect to full faith and credit. Of course, there's a lot of issues with full faith and credit to be had... New York would partially recognize my professional license but I'd have to go through paperwork hell if I wanted to work there; it would recognize my TX driver's license, but it wouldn't recognize my Texas concealed carry license...

The 10th Amendment needs a fair sight more respect and I wish there were more rulings about it on a variety of matters. The Feds ignore it utterly and do whatever the hell they want to do.


That said, on the other hand, by no means can anyone earnestly suggest that the Constitution as written was intended to dictate the legality of homosexual marriage on a federal level.

Actually that arguement has no bearing.. This ruling deals with what the federal government does in relation to a state law.. Meaning the federal government must recognize same sex couples in the same manner as straight couples.. This has nothing to do with one state recognizing the weapon permit of another..

The 10th amendment is just fine as it simply deals with the relation of the state and federal governments.. There is nothing defining the relationship between states.. Other than each state must hold the Constitution as the law of the land.. State rights means each state can have it's own laws and regulations on things.. The point is that the federal government is forced to recognize them all in an equal manner.. Other states do not have that requirement..

Originally Posted by MajikMyst

Actually that arguement has no bearing.. This ruling deals with what the federal government does in relation to a state law.. Meaning the federal government must recognize same sex couples in the same manner as straight couples.. This has nothing to do with one state recognizing the weapon permit of another..

The 10th amendment is just fine as it simply deals with the relation of the state and federal governments.. There is nothing defining the relationship between states.. Other than each state must hold the Constitution as the law of the land.. State rights means each state can have it's own laws and regulations on things.. The point is that the federal government is forced to recognize them all in an equal manner.. Other states do not have that requirement..

I believe TR calls that a poop and swoop.