Federal judge rules that part of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional

[Procrustes Stretched]

It's funny how people who bitch about protecting "marraige" have not had a problem with DOMA not preventing legalized pedophilia in the form of a 50 year old fuck up marrying a 14 year old. Marriage has never had a single definition.

Anyways, I disagree with the judge in that in seems to violate the 14th as much if not more than the 10th.

how so? how does DOMA violate the 14th more than 10th? what arguments would you have made to the court that were not made, if any?

 

[CurveLight]

It's funny how people who bitch about protecting "marraige" have not had a problem with DOMA not preventing legalized pedophilia in the form of a 50 year old fuck up marrying a 14 year old. Marriage has never had a single definition.

Anyways, I disagree with the judge in that in seems to violate the 14th as much if not more than the 10th.

how so? how does DOMA violate the 14th more than 10th? what arguments would you have made to the court that were not made, if any?

How is the State denying equal rights based on race any different than it being based on gender? Especially in an arena as intimate as marriage.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It's funny how people who bitch about protecting "marraige" have not had a problem with DOMA not preventing legalized pedophilia in the form of a 50 year old fuck up marrying a 14 year old. Marriage has never had a single definition.

Anyways, I disagree with the judge in that in seems to violate the 14th as much if not more than the 10th.

how so? how does DOMA violate the 14th more than 10th? what arguments would you have made to the court that were not made, if any?

How is the State denying equal rights based on race any different than it being based on gender? Especially in an arena as intimate as marriage.

The court ruled on two cases in two areas. I guess it is confusing people.

---

Tauro agreed, ruling on two separate challenges to the law that the act forced Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens.

"The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state, and in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment," Tauro wrote in a ruling. "For that reason, the statute is invalid."

In a second case, filed by Gays & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, Tauro ruled that DOMA also violates the Constitution's equal protection clause.



Read more: Boston judge: Federal ban on gay marriage unconstitutional, calls statute discriminatory, 'invalid'

--

If you are arguing with the first case you are in error.

 

[CurveLight]

how so? how does DOMA violate the 14th more than 10th? what arguments would you have made to the court that were not made, if any?

How is the State denying equal rights based on race any different than it being based on gender? Especially in an arena as intimate as marriage.

The court ruled on two cases in two areas. I guess it is confusing people.

---

Tauro agreed, ruling on two separate challenges to the law that the act forced Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens.

"The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state, and in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment," Tauro wrote in a ruling. "For that reason, the statute is invalid."

In a second case, filed by Gays & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, Tauro ruled that DOMA also violates the Constitution's equal protection clause.



Read more: Boston judge: Federal ban on gay marriage unconstitutional, calls statute discriminatory, 'invalid'

--

If you are arguing with the first case you are in error.

I was just lazy and didn't read the op in full like I usually do. Thanks for pointing that out. Now I don't have to go to Tauro's house and have a heart to heart.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

How is the State denying equal rights based on race any different than it being based on gender? Especially in an arena as intimate as marriage.

The court ruled on two cases in two areas. I guess it is confusing people.

---

Tauro agreed, ruling on two separate challenges to the law that the act forced Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens.

"The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state, and in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment," Tauro wrote in a ruling. "For that reason, the statute is invalid."

In a second case, filed by Gays & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, Tauro ruled that DOMA also violates the Constitution's equal protection clause.



Read more: Boston judge: Federal ban on gay marriage unconstitutional, calls statute discriminatory, 'invalid'

--

If you are arguing with the first case you are in error.

I was just lazy and didn't read the op in full like I usually do. Thanks for pointing that out. Now I don't have to go to Tauro's house and have a heart to heart.

Tauro is a neat guy. I did not always agree with his rulings, but many Massachusetts Judges are so great compared to lots of others nation wide. my opinion