# 1st Circuit Court of Appeals: Defense of Marriage Act is Unconstitutional **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 31, 2012, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1st-circuit-court-of-appeals-defense-of-marriage-act-is-unconstitutional/623653 "2012-05-31T14:26:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 27
**Author:** ![Reyemile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@Reyemile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reyemile)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2012, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1st-circuit-court-of-appeals-defense-of-marriage-act-is-unconstitutional/623653/521 "2012-06-13T06:14:47Z")
> [@David42](#): > > The obvious nature of the hypotheticals I framed is to avoid getting hung up on other details irrelevant to my point, not some kind of trickery. Your complaint of transpoarency is really nothing more than your admission that you know the answer but will not say it. The inference from that is that you don’t like the answer because it does not help what you say but does help what I say. > > I framed the hypothetical simply and obviously enough that a third grader would understand. You’re misunderstanding my issue. You framed that hypotheticals so a third-grader would get them. Your own words. Then, you insist that I must address all four cases, even though a hypothetical third grader could predict my answers. According to you, if I don’t give you these answers that a schoolchild already knows, then my interpretation of the one example I did address (which calls into question your thesis) is somehow invalid. Do you think I’m dumber than a third grader and evaluating your examples wrong? Do you have some brilliant “Gotcha” that you’re just waiting for a chance to use once I say which of C or D is more suspicious? Or are you just refusing to address that fact that you’ve undermined your own point by nitpicking procedure? Whatever the explanation, I won’t play that game. ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2012, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1st-circuit-court-of-appeals-defense-of-marriage-act-is-unconstitutional/623653/522 "2012-06-13T18:49:27Z")
> [@David42](#): > > Cite that heterosexual women have higher cervical cancer than lesbians, please. And make sure it’s not a cite to women who take the pill. > > The fact is the #1 cause of cervical cancer is HPV. it is also a fact that lesbians also spread HPV. Sorry I can’t find a cite based on the criteria you’ve limited me too. It is a fact of our society that more heterosexual women take the pill them homosexual women thus tainting in your mind the findings heterosexual women have a higher rate of cervical cancer. It is an undeniable fact that penetrative sex carries increased risk of HPV transmission, and a quite plausible one that female heterosexuals are probably going to have an increased incidence of this. [QUOTE=david42] it is an undeniable fact that anal sex carries increased risk of colo-rectal cancer, and a quite plausible one that male homosexuals are probably going to have an increased incidence of this. [/QUOTE] My overall point was to point out the ridiculousness of your post. You seem content with being ridiculous so by all means carry on people like you do wonders to help those of us on the pro-marriage side. I noticed you completely skipped the lower risk of aids presented. If a parent out there is trying to explain the pro’s and con’s of being homosexual to their child like they are going to get some choice in the matter, yes they are likely to be labeled a hater because it’s likely they are. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2012, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1st-circuit-court-of-appeals-defense-of-marriage-act-is-unconstitutional/623653/523 "2012-06-14T04:29:10Z")
> [@David42](#): > > I really think you’re still standing on a tit-for-tat argument–“I’m not supporting those negroes civl rights until they quit all that crime, they deserve it.” (Even though a legitimate inquiry into civil rights might include a rational discussion of whether it would lead to increased crime, if there was one. Yes, the government can deny civil rights if it has a good reason!) It is interesting that you tried to advance the notion that some homosexual parents would try to poison their children’s minds against heterosexuality as a reason to interfere with the rights of homosexuals to be parents and now you are trying to build a straw man argument in which I am supposed to be supporting suppression of anything. You appear to have attempted to argue against SSM, (although whatever you were actually arguing was pretty vague), on the grounds that hetero kids should have the appropriate role models. You then attempted to support that assertion by making an argument about some gay parents denigrating heterosexuality. My point was that such parents are too few to worry about in a serious discussiuon, and even if they exist, they provide no substantive argument against gay marriage or gay parenting. You then wandered into some odd discussion of “tit-for-tat” that has nothing to do with anything that I have posted. To address a second part of your earlier post that I had hoped to not have to, but you seem to dwell on the idea: > [@David42](#): > > And there is the problem that gays tend to admit to nothing that is not in their favor, so that everything that a parent might teach is “hate.” This is GEEPERS logic and is rather silly. Most people fail to admit thngs not in their favor. So what? You then extend that to an unsupportable claim that ‘everything that a parent might teach is “hate.”’ That is nothing more than your projectuion of what how you want specific people to believe. As such, it remains irrelevant to the discussion. > [@David42](#): > > That’s cause you are counting a parent cautioning their child on the drawbacks of gay BEHAVIOR is counted as hate (As though a parent is supposed to go, Oh, you’ve chosen behavior which increases your risk of cancer! I’m so glad for you!) which is unwarranted. I have never said anything that could be construed as counting something as hate. That is your projection. Certainly, all parents should caution their children against harmful behavior, but you selected one act as “gay” behavior when it is not universal among gays and is frequently practiced among heterosexuals. The fact that you selected such an act and pretended that it was “gay” behavior and then claimed that anyone who cuationed against it would be accused of promoting hatred is nothing but a straw man. I have no numbers for the prevalence of anal penetrative sex among gay men; I simply know from conversations that it is not universally desired or performed. On the other hand, I also know that it is performed by heterosexual couples, so claiming that it is a “gay” act is silly. Everyone should tell all their kids about all possible issues. If one encounters a gay couple who actually claim that warnings of sexual issues is "hatred,’ then chastise that couple for stupidity. That is hardly a valid reason to oppose SSM–which certainly appeared to be your point. ---
**Author:** ![Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kolak_of_twilo/32/73_2.png) [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kolak_of_Twilo)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2012, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1st-circuit-court-of-appeals-defense-of-marriage-act-is-unconstitutional/623653/524 "2012-10-18T18:42:55Z")
Now the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has ruled DoMA unconstitutional - [Linky](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/us/appeals-court-rules-against-defense-of-marriage-act.html). ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2012, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1st-circuit-court-of-appeals-defense-of-marriage-act-is-unconstitutional/623653/525 "2012-10-18T20:11:40Z")
> [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](#): > > Now the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has ruled DoMA unconstitutional - [Linky](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/us/appeals-court-rules-against-defense-of-marriage-act.html). This is a big deal note they applied “intermediate scrutiny” in the decision. > [@](#): > > Section 3 of DOMA is subject to intermediate > 10 scrutiny under the factors enumerated in City of Cleburn v. > 11 Cleburn Living Center, 473 U.S. 431 (1985), and other cases. > 12 > IV. > The statute does not withstand that review. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2012, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1st-circuit-court-of-appeals-defense-of-marriage-act-is-unconstitutional/623653/526 "2012-10-18T20:12:31Z")
Hah, the dispute was about paying estate taxes. I guess some tax-hating conservatives will have to make a decision which issue to cling to - lower taxes or “traditional” marriage. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2012, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1st-circuit-court-of-appeals-defense-of-marriage-act-is-unconstitutional/623653/527 "2012-10-18T20:21:06Z")
I know he has switched sides but I would be interested if Bickler could comment on the use of “City of Cleburn v. Cleburn Living Center” as the cite for applying “intermediate scrutiny” I think this was my original claim too about what may happen in SCOTUS if not the “rational with bite” but now that this is not just the rambling of a citizen who’s only direct involvement with the law was as a grand juror and thus an admitted “non-expert” (me). Do you have any concerns about the 2nd Circuit’s decision? ---
**Author:** ![Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kolak_of_twilo/32/73_2.png) [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kolak_of_Twilo)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2012, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1st-circuit-court-of-appeals-defense-of-marriage-act-is-unconstitutional/623653/528 "2012-10-18T20:35:27Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Hah, the dispute was about paying estate taxes. I guess some tax-hating conservatives will have to make a decision which issue to cling to - lower taxes or “traditional” marriage. Yeah, I noticed that. I can only imagine how scowly that is likely to make some of the Supremes. ---
**Author:** ![Roderick\_Femm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/roderick_femm/32/14875_2.png) [@Roderick\_Femm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roderick_Femm)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2012, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1st-circuit-court-of-appeals-defense-of-marriage-act-is-unconstitutional/623653/529 "2012-10-18T22:12:29Z")
Last weekend on my local public radio station (KQED) I heard a legal expert (sorry I don’t know who it was, I came in halfway through) predict that the Supremes would accept certiorari (sp?) on DOMA, because it only affects those states that individually allow for same sex marriage without forcing it on states that don’t want it, and that they would overturn it, because it is pretty much indefensible; but that they would deny cert for California’s Prop 8, because if that is upheld by the Supremes it could, in effect, force legal SSM for all states. This means, of course, that the 9th Circuit ruling against Prop 8 would stand, and the law would be overturned, but only in California. This makes so much sense that I felt the need to check with other legal experts, of whom there are apparently several in this digital neighborhood. Roddy ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2012, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1st-circuit-court-of-appeals-defense-of-marriage-act-is-unconstitutional/623653/530 "2012-10-18T22:38:00Z")
> [@Roderick\_Femm](#): > > Last weekend on my local public radio station (KQED) I heard a legal expert (sorry I don’t know who it was, I came in halfway through) predict that the Supremes would accept certiorari (sp?) on DOMA, because it only affects those states that individually allow for same sex marriage without forcing it on states that don’t want it, and that they would overturn it, because it is pretty much indefensible; but that they would deny cert for California’s Prop 8, because if that is upheld by the Supremes it could, in effect, force legal SSM for all states. This means, of course, that the 9th Circuit ruling against Prop 8 would stand, and the law would be overturned, but only in California. > > This makes so much sense that I felt the need to check with other legal experts, of whom there are apparently several in this digital neighborhood. > Roddy DOMA does a couple of different things. One section says that states do not have to recognize other states’ SSM laws. This section is, I think, on firm constitutional ground. It also says that the federal government will not recognize any form of SSM, _even if a state has recognized the marriage_. This is the more constitutionally infirm stance. ---
**Author:** ![Roderick\_Femm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/roderick_femm/32/14875_2.png) [@Roderick\_Femm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roderick_Femm)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2012, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1st-circuit-court-of-appeals-defense-of-marriage-act-is-unconstitutional/623653/531 "2012-10-18T22:53:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > DOMA does a couple of different things. One section says that states do not have to recognize other states’ SSM laws. This section is, I think, on firm constitutional ground. > > It also says that the federal government will not recognize any form of SSM, _even if a state has recognized the marriage_. > > This is the more constitutionally infirm stance. Ah, thank you; the “legal expert” did not, I think, make this distinction. Based on his remarks, I think he must have been talking about only the second part. Roddy ---
**Author:** ![PBear42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@PBear42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PBear42)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2012, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1st-circuit-court-of-appeals-defense-of-marriage-act-is-unconstitutional/623653/532 "2012-10-19T03:08:40Z")
For those interested, here’s a [link](http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/436f323b-5e40-411a-9026-98fa59ffb645/1/doc/12-2335_complete_opn.pdf) to a pdf of the full Second Circuit opinion. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1st-circuit-court-of-appeals-defense-of-marriage-act-is-unconstitutional/623653.md?page=26)