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

[Quantum Windbag]

Way back when I told people this day would come. Not when DOMA was passed, but when Margaret Marshall became a Profile in Courage.


avatar, is spinning it's wheels. the disconnect is now glaring. very little room left for the state's rights arguments they anti gays held onto so dearly. heads in the sand have now been pulled out. watch for a huge change in position from the anti gays.

Profile in Courage ... 11/18/2003

How were they denied Medicaid? Is medicaid eligibility detirmined by marriage in Massachusetts

some arguments..U.S.: Mass. can't force gay marriage benefits

The lawsuit also argues that the federal law requires the state to violate the constitutional rights of its citizens by treating married heterosexual couples and married same-sex couples differently when determining eligibility for Medicaid benefits and when determining whether the spouse of a veteran can be buried in a Massachusetts veterans' cemetery.


---

medicaid is a federal benefit managed by the states.

benefits info in Mass

That just shows how screwed up all of this is concerned, marital status should be irrelevant.

I really don't think this ruling is going to hold up, unlike the other ruling the same judge handed down in a different case that found section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional because it violates the due porcess clause of the 5th amendment. If Mediciad is a federal benefit then the feds get to determine eligibility, and it should be based strictly on income, not marital status. If anything, I think marriage would be more likely to disqualify someone than qualify them for it, because they would be earning more money as a couple than someone as a single person.

 

[Immanuel]

DOMA violates states rights? How so? It was written specifically to protect states rights.

The Fed has no authority to regulate Marriage period. It is the states domain. If you want to nit pick about it that is.

Have to disagree with you. Marriage is the domain of the church, not the state.

The State (government both Federal and State) should get out of the marriage business completely per the Separation of Church and State and regulate Civil Unions.

The government should not discriminate against any citizen gay or straight and should therefore license civil unions for couples. The church can then get about the Rite of Marriage as it sees fit and if liberal churches decide they want to marry homosexual couples, then so be it. My church would not be required to recognize such a marriage if it chose not to.

Immie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Section 3 of DOMA has been ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge in Mass because it violates the equal protection clause of the 5th amendment.

http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/2010-07-08-gill-district-court-decision.pdf

Apparently the same judge also handed down a decision in a separate case that DOMA violates states rights under the 10th amendment.

DOMA decision in Mass AG case

Are you sure you don't mean the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment?

Shit.

I meant due process clause. Trying to handle to many things at once.

 

[Political Junky]

Except reality proves you wrong. It is the "red" states that have been growing the past ten years and the "blue" states that have been withering. People have grown tired of the higher costs of living in the northeast, the Rust Belt, and California. I work in Charlotte and half of us in the office are yankees.

moron. we are talking about if red and blue states had and did not have health care.

premise: more people would move to states with health care.

Being that the majority of the country disapproves of ObamaCare I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. You assume that people would move to states with government funded health care, but again, in order to do that the cost of living would rise and the quality of the care probably wouldn't be that good, as evidenced in countries that have universal health care.

Hawaii and Tennessee had universal care for a time and we had RomneyCare back in MA. Nobody was flocking to those states for the health care. HI and TN ended up disabling theirs because it was too expensive and the cost of health insurance in MA has skyrocketed.

Verdict on Healthcare Reform Bill Still Divided

49% approve
46% disapprove

 

[Charles_Main]

DOMA violates states rights? How so? It was written specifically to protect states rights.

The Fed has no authority to regulate Marriage period. It is the states domain. If you want to nit pick about it that is.

Have to disagree with you. Marriage is the domain of the church, not the state.

Wrong there is a thing called state sanctioned legal marriage. You do not even have to go to a church to get married. The state recognizes your marriage whether are affiliated with a church or not. The state issues you a license. Clearly Legal Marriage is the domain of the states.

 

[syrenn]

Good, its about time.

 

[Immanuel]

The Fed has no authority to regulate Marriage period. It is the states domain. If you want to nit pick about it that is.

Have to disagree with you. Marriage is the domain of the church, not the state.

Wrong there is a thing called state sanctioned legal marriage. You do not even have to go to a church to get married. The state recognizes your marriage whether are affiliated with a church or not. The state issues you a license. Clearly Legal Marriage is the domain of the states.

Marriage is a Rite of the Church. The state has no business being in the marriage business.

Immie

 

[bodecea]

A Boston judge has fired the latest salvo in the battle for gay marriage, ruling Thursday that a federal ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional because it violates states' rights. U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro ruled in favor of gay couples' right to marry, the AP reports, challenging the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) on the ground that it interferes with a state’s right to define marriage.

Same-sex unions have been legal in Massachusetts since 2004, but the state argued that DOMA discriminated against gay married couples by denying them access to the same benefits as heterosexual married couples. 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.

The lawsuit challenges only the portion of the law that prevents the federal government from affording pension and other benefits to same-sex couples.

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

States Rights, Baby!

 

[bodecea]

Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, called Tauro's ruling "judicial activism" and said Tauro was a "rogue judge." Gay marriage advocates will keep pushing their agenda in the courts, she said, but noted voters often reject gay marriage at the ballot box, including in a recent California vote.

"We can't allow the lowest common denominator states, like Massachusetts, to set standards for the country," Lafferty said.



Read more: Federal gay marriage ban is ruled unconstitutional - Sacramento News - Local and Breaking Sacramento News | Sacramento Bee

----

Tell that to the Boston Tea Party and the Patriots of 1776

Massachusetts a "lowest common denominator state"? Where is she from? Texas? That would be hysterical if she was.

 

[bodecea]

That is a stretch, in my opinion.

Way back when I told people this day would come. Not when DOMA was passed, but when Margaret Marshall became a Profile in Courage.


avatar, is spinning it's wheels. the disconnect is now glaring. very little room left for the state's rights arguments they anti gays held onto so dearly. heads in the sand have now been pulled out. watch for a huge change in position from the anti gays.

Profile in Courage ... 11/18/2003

I didn't start this thread, and I told you -- the judge laid out the reasoning. Your argument must be against the judge's.

The issues are laid out in the arguments in the court case.

Legally Gay married couples were denied MEDICAID because of DOMA. Two competing interests. You claim to support the rights of the states to determine marraige, yet you also support the federal government telling states who they can give marriage benefits to.

How were they denied Medicaid? Is medicaid eligibility detirmined by marriage in Massachusetts

We're denied Medicare too and we're legally married in CA...DOMA prevents the feds from recognizing our marriage when it comes to any federal benefits, protections,etc. When we refinanced our home, we had a devil of a time, because the financing was thru a federally funded program that wouldn't let us file our paperwork as a married couple even tho we live in CA, the house is in CA and the bank is a CA bank. Because of DOMA.

 

[bodecea]

DOMA violates states rights? How so? It was written specifically to protect states rights.

The Fed has no authority to regulate Marriage period. It is the states domain. If you want to nit pick about it that is.

Have to disagree with you. Marriage is the domain of the church, not the state.
The State (government both Federal and State) should get out of the marriage business completely per the Separation of Church and State and regulate Civil Unions.

The government should not discriminate against any citizen gay or straight and should therefore license civil unions for couples. The church can then get about the Rite of Marriage as it sees fit and if liberal churches decide they want to marry homosexual couples, then so be it. My church would not be required to recognize such a marriage if it chose not to.

Immie

Well then, We've been married since 1990 rather than 2008 then. That's when we were married within the domain of the church. But then, the state didn't recognize our marriage.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Way back when I told people this day would come. Not when DOMA was passed, but when Margaret Marshall became a Profile in Courage.


avatar, is spinning it's wheels. the disconnect is now glaring. very little room left for the state's rights arguments they anti gays held onto so dearly. heads in the sand have now been pulled out. watch for a huge change in position from the anti gays.

Profile in Courage ... 11/18/2003

How were they denied Medicaid? Is medicaid eligibility detirmined by marriage in Massachusetts

We're denied Medicare too and we're legally married in CA...DOMA prevents the feds from recognizing our marriage when it comes to any federal benefits, protections,etc. When we refinanced our home, we had a devil of a time, because the financing was thru a federally funded program that wouldn't let us file our paperwork as a married couple even tho we live in CA, the house is in CA and the bank is a CA bank. Because of DOMA.

Let me be upfront here so no one starts saying things that thet cannot back up. I support the right of same sex couples to get equal treatemnt under the law as opposite sex couples.

Now, how does being married affect Medicaid? Medicaid is supposed to cover everyone who needs medical care as long as they meet income requirements. Why is marriage even a factor in this? If you cannot claim Medicaid eligibility because you are married, and your spouse makes too much money, then don't tell them you are married.

 

[bodecea]

How were they denied Medicaid? Is medicaid eligibility detirmined by marriage in Massachusetts

We're denied Medicare too and we're legally married in CA...DOMA prevents the feds from recognizing our marriage when it comes to any federal benefits, protections,etc. When we refinanced our home, we had a devil of a time, because the financing was thru a federally funded program that wouldn't let us file our paperwork as a married couple even tho we live in CA, the house is in CA and the bank is a CA bank. Because of DOMA.

Let me be upfront here so no one starts saying things that thet cannot back up. I support the right of same sex couples to get equal treatemnt under the law as opposite sex couples.

Now, how does being married affect Medicaid? Medicaid is supposed to cover everyone who needs medical care as long as they meet income requirements. Why is marriage even a factor in this? If you cannot claim Medicaid eligibility because you are married, and your spouse makes too much money, then don't tell them you are married.

I'm not in the habit of trying to scam money out of the government no matter how much I disagree with their rulings.

 

[Brubricker]

Have to disagree with you. Marriage is the domain of the church, not the state.

Wrong there is a thing called state sanctioned legal marriage. You do not even have to go to a church to get married. The state recognizes your marriage whether are affiliated with a church or not. The state issues you a license. Clearly Legal Marriage is the domain of the states.

Marriage is a Rite of the Church. The state has no business being in the marriage business.

Immie

Deadbeat dads everywhere just looooooooooove you.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

How were they denied Medicaid? Is medicaid eligibility detirmined by marriage in Massachusetts

some arguments..U.S.: Mass. can't force gay marriage benefits

The lawsuit also argues that the federal law requires the state to violate the constitutional rights of its citizens by treating married heterosexual couples and married same-sex couples differently when determining eligibility for Medicaid benefits and when determining whether the spouse of a veteran can be buried in a Massachusetts veterans' cemetery.


---

medicaid is a federal benefit managed by the states.

benefits info in Mass

That just shows how screwed up all of this is concerned, marital status should be irrelevant.

I really don't think this ruling is going to hold up, unlike the other ruling the same judge handed down in a different case that found section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional because it violates the due porcess clause of the 5th amendment. If Mediciad is a federal benefit then the feds get to determine eligibility, and it should be based strictly on income, not marital status. If anything, I think marriage would be more likely to disqualify someone than qualify them for it, because they would be earning more money as a couple than someone as a single person.

IMNSHO, the only valid reason the government should be in the business of marriage is for things like benefits and tax issues -- they go hand in hand. Maybe we should just all find a different way of filing?

Marriage matters only because married people have been mixing income with eligibility for benefits for ages. Now all of a sudden somebody dislikes gay marriage and they question how the system always worked?

Some things about how the system works for married couples may seem counter intuitive for the simple minded. The rules are different for married couples.

 

[bodecea]

Have to disagree with you. Marriage is the domain of the church, not the state.

Wrong there is a thing called state sanctioned legal marriage. You do not even have to go to a church to get married. The state recognizes your marriage whether are affiliated with a church or not. The state issues you a license. Clearly Legal Marriage is the domain of the states.

Marriage is a Rite of the Church. The state has no business being in the marriage business.

Immie

So, you consider my wife and I married...even before the State of California did.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

DOMA violates states rights? How so? It was written specifically to protect states rights.

The Fed has no authority to regulate Marriage period. It is the states domain. If you want to nit pick about it that is.

Have to disagree with you. Marriage is the domain of the church, not the state.

The State (government both Federal and State) should get out of the marriage business completely per the Separation of Church and State and regulate Civil Unions.

The government should not discriminate against any citizen gay or straight and should therefore license civil unions for couples. The church can then get about the Rite of Marriage as it sees fit and if liberal churches decide they want to marry homosexual couples, then so be it. My church would not be required to recognize such a marriage if it chose not to.

Immie

Idiot. Married people demand state involvement for tax purposes and more. Marriage is NOT the domain of the churches. If people want civil marriages it is their -- god given right.

but maybe the state should stop subsidizing married couples and the god damned churches?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, called Tauro's ruling "judicial activism" and said Tauro was a "rogue judge." Gay marriage advocates will keep pushing their agenda in the courts, she said, but noted voters often reject gay marriage at the ballot box, including in a recent California vote.

"We can't allow the lowest common denominator states, like Massachusetts, to set standards for the country," Lafferty said.



Read more: Federal gay marriage ban is ruled unconstitutional - Sacramento News - Local and Breaking Sacramento News | Sacramento Bee

----

Tell that to the Boston Tea Party and the Patriots of 1776

Massachusetts a "lowest common denominator state"? Where is she from? Texas? That would be hysterical if she was.

yes it would.

 

[Immanuel]

The Fed has no authority to regulate Marriage period. It is the states domain. If you want to nit pick about it that is.

Have to disagree with you. Marriage is the domain of the church, not the state.
The State (government both Federal and State) should get out of the marriage business completely per the Separation of Church and State and regulate Civil Unions.

The government should not discriminate against any citizen gay or straight and should therefore license civil unions for couples. The church can then get about the Rite of Marriage as it sees fit and if liberal churches decide they want to marry homosexual couples, then so be it. My church would not be required to recognize such a marriage if it chose not to.

Immie

Well then, We've been married since 1990 rather than 2008 then. That's when we were married within the domain of the church. But then, the state didn't recognize our marriage.

I have no problem with that.

If you found a church willing to marry you then so be it.

I do not believe the U.S. Government has any business discriminating against you or anyone else. Whether my church recognizes your marriage is immaterial. Ultimately, it is between you and God. It is not up to the state to decide.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

Wrong there is a thing called state sanctioned legal marriage. You do not even have to go to a church to get married. The state recognizes your marriage whether are affiliated with a church or not. The state issues you a license. Clearly Legal Marriage is the domain of the states.

Marriage is a Rite of the Church. The state has no business being in the marriage business.

Immie

Deadbeat dads everywhere just looooooooooove you.

That makes absolutely no sense at all, Brubaker.

Whether or not a couple was married has absolutely zero to do with a father being required to pay child support.

Immie