Federal judge rules DOMA unconstitutional!

[alphaboi867]

This isn’t Perry v. Schwarzenegger; it’s another case on the East Coast. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts had filed suit against the federal government claiming that the “Defence of Marriage” Act was unconstitutional because it forced the state to discriminate against same-sex couples (who have the right to marry under state law) in administering federally funded benefits like Medicaid. US District Judge Tauro agreed with Massachusetts and struck down the portion of DOMA that restricts the federal government from recognizing lawful same-sex marriages. His ruling doesn’t seem to address the issue of other states having to recognize out-of-state unions.

Any thoughts? While I think this ruling is a huge victory for LGBT rights (as well as "state’s rights); I’m also certain this is going to be appealed all the way to the US Supreme Count. That’ll take what; 2/3 years tops for a ruling? How will this hold up on appeal? What implications does it have in the meantime (I assume the Justice Dept. is going to ask for a stay pending appeal)? What about same-sex couples who legally married in a stare that has SSM, but now live in a state that doesn’t? Would the federal government have to consider them married or not?

I also think it would be very interesting to see what effect this ruling will have on repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” since it’s possible the Defence Dept might suddenly be faced with having to quickly go from discharged openly gay servicemembers to granting them full spousal rights and family house on base. To say nothing of the prospect of military gay weddings!

[Gangster_Octopus]

This is fantastic news. And since IANAL my opinion may not matter, but the highlights of the decision seem to me to be very well reasoned. DOMA is one of the biggest pieces of crap legislation out there.

[UltraVires]

But since gay couples travel in, or otherwise affect, interstate commerce, doesn’t that give the feds a hook?

[Oakminster]

From the link:
*
“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. For that reason, the statute is invalid,” Tauro wrote in a ruling in a lawsuit filed by Attorney General Martha Coakley.

Ruling in a separate case filed by Gays & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, Tauro found that DOMA violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.*

I dunno about the 10th Amendment ruling in the case that prompted this thread. If SCOTUS were to uphold that but reverse the Equal Protection case, then other states are free to continue not recognizing gay marriage, and some of them…including the one I live in…will surely do so.

The Equal Protection ruling in the other case seems way more important, and if SCOTUS upholds it, then it’s game over. Gay marriages will be legal everywhere in the country, regardless of local preferences.

I think Scalia may surprise some people if he gets to rule on the Equal Protection case. I’d expect his opinion to be something like: Equal means equal. Gays can marry each other if they wanna. They’ll burn in Hell forever, but that issue is not before this Court.

[Lakai]

@Oakminster

I think Scalia may surprise some people if he gets to rule on the Equal Protection case. I’d expect his opinion to be something like: Equal means equal. Gays can marry each other if they wanna. They’ll burn in Hell forever, but that issue is not before this Court.

Can anyone really believe that after his dissent in Romer v. Evans:

The Court has mistaken a Kulturkampf for a fit of spite. The constitutional amendment before us here is not the manifestation of a “`bare . . . desire to harm’” homosexuals, ante, at 13, but is rather a modest attempt by seemingly tolerant Coloradans to preserve traditional sexual mores against the efforts of a politically powerful minority to revise those mores through use of the laws. That objective, and the means chosen to achieve it, are not only unimpeachable under any constitutional doctrine hitherto pronounced (hence the opinion’s heavy reliance upon principles of righteousness rather than judicial holdings); they have been specifically approved by the Congress of the United States and by this Court.

In holding that homosexuality cannot be singled out for disfavorable treatment, the Court contradicts a decision, unchallenged here, pronounced only 10 years ago, see Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U. S. 186 (1986), and places the prestige of this institution behind the proposition that opposition to homosexuality is as reprehensible as racial or religious bias. Whether it is or not is precisely the cultural debate that gave rise to the Colorado constitutional amendment (and to the preferential laws against which the amendment was directed). Since the Constitution of the United States says nothing about this subject, it is left to be resolved by normal democratic means, including the democratic adoption of provisions in state constitutions. This Court has no business imposing upon all Americans the resolution favored by the elite class from which the Members of this institution are selected, pronouncing that “animosity” toward homosexuality, ante, at 13, is evil. I vigorously dissent.

I think Scalia can be a brilliant Supreme Court Justice at times, but his opinions on homosexuality are just too clouded with prejudice.

Here’s the relevant text of the law at issue in Romer:

"No Protected Status Based on Homosexual, Lesbian, or Bisexual Orientation. Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, shall enact, adopt or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of or entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination.

No equal protection problem here… just heterosexuals trying to preserve their values… move along now.

[John_Mace]

@Oakminster

From the link:
*
“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. For that reason, the statute is invalid,” Tauro wrote in a ruling in a lawsuit filed by Attorney General Martha Coakley.

Ruling in a separate case filed by Gays & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, Tauro found that DOMA violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.*

I dunno about the 10th Amendment ruling in the case that prompted this thread. If SCOTUS were to uphold that but reverse the Equal Protection case, then other states are free to continue not recognizing gay marriage, and some of them…including the one I live in…will surely do so.

Tenthers!

The Equal Protection ruling in the other case seems way more important, and if SCOTUS upholds it, then it’s game over. Gay marriages will be legal everywhere in the country, regardless of local preferences.

I think Scalia may surprise some people if he gets to rule on the Equal Protection case. I’d expect his opinion to be something like: Equal means equal. Gays can marry each other if they wanna. They’ll burn in Hell forever, but that issue is not before this Court.

Really? Unless he is convinced that homosexuality is innate, and not a “lifestyle choice”, I can’t see it. Legitimizing a “lifestyle choice” in this matter opens the floodgates.

[smiling_bandit]

:rolleyes:

Usual lefties incapable of comprehending that SAcalia says what the law is and not what he thinks it should be.

[waterj2]

@alphaboi867

This isn’t Perry v. Schwarzenegger; it’s another case on the East Coast. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts had filed suit against the federal government claiming that the “Defence of Marriage” Act was unconstitutional because it forced the state to discriminate against same-sex couples (who have the right to marry under state law) in administering federally funded benefits like Medicaid. US District Judge Tauro agreed with Massachusetts and struck down the portion of DOMA that restricts the federal government from recognizing lawful same-sex marriages. His ruling doesn’t seem to address the issue of other states having to recognize out-of-state unions.

To be precise, there were two separate cases. Gill v. Office of Personnel Management was brought by GLAD on behalf of of 16 (give or take) plaintiffs who had been denied various federal spousal benefits because they were in same sex marriages. That case was decided on the basis of Equal Protection. The related case, Massachusetts v. Health and Human Services was brought by the Attorney General of Massachusetts (I’m sure you can recall Martha Coakley). That case was decided on the basis of the Tenth Amendment. Both cases specifically targeted Section 3 of DOMA, which reads:

@Section 3 of DOMA

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

I haven’t read the decisions yet, but it’s my understanding that only Section 3 was at issue.

[Rumor_Watkins]

Any preliminary analysis/attempts at analysis on how this ruling makes sense in the broader picture?
Bascially, if I am gleaning correctly, the case is:

1. States are the ones entrusted to defining marriage (since there’s no grant of that right of the federal government to define it, and by operation of the constitution if the feds don’t have the right, it’s exclusively a state right)
2. MA administer certain federal programs in MA
3. MA can’t discriminate / don’t want to discriminate on homosexual couples
4. Based on the Federal definition, they are required to discriminate, and they can’t do that, so there’s a conflict
5. The conflict should be resolved in favor of the states, since we have established that they are the only ones with the sole and exclusive right to define marriage
   ok… if that’s the case, it doesn’t make much sense to me. You’re basically taking the federal gov’ts spending power and subordinating it to a State’s whim, right? I’m of the idea (i.e. I have been lead to believe is the case, not that I believe this as a principle) that if the US government is not violating the US constitution, it can tax and spend to its heart’s content… So short of there being an equal protection or other rights violation, I can’t see how the feds can’t be told how to spend their cheddar.

Clearly I am missing something, right?

[Rumor_Watkins]

ok… read the Mass v. HHS. His spending clause jurisprudence hhangs on the equal protection clause finding in the other case.

Chalk this up to “meh” and we’ll just wait for the SCOTUS to sort it out.

[waterj2]

One thing that I forgot to mention is that the Gill decision (the Equal Protection one) relies on rational basis review for its findings. The courts have seemed uniformly reluctant to declare homosexuals a suspect class, but I am encouraged that they are taking seriously arguments on marriage discrimination not being based on any rational basis.

[Rumor_Watkins]

@waterj2

One thing that I forgot to mention is that the Gill decision (the Equal Protection one) relies on rational basis review for its findings. The courts have seemed uniformly reluctant to declare homosexuals a suspect class, but I am encouraged that they are taking seriously arguments on marriage discrimination not being based on any rational basis.

How did his opinion handle the argument of subsidizing subsequent generations/subsidizing child-bearing families, if it even touched on that?

edit:

@waterj2

… The related case, Massachusetts v. Health and Human Services was brought by the Attorney General of Massachusetts (I’m sure you can recall Martha Coakley). That case was decided on the basis of the Tenth Amendment. Both cases specifically targeted Section 3 of DOMA, which reads:

oh and IMHO, his 10th amendment analysis is sorely lacking without the companion case that found the EP violation. The bits about them having an impaired ability to structure integral operations in areas of traditional governmental functions because they’re threatened with a loss of federal subsidies is a bit eyebrow-raising to me.

[Kolak_of_Twilo]

I honestly can’t see SCOTUS upholding this with the current sitting justices. However, from the article in the New York Times -

By citing the 10th Amendment and making what is essentially a states’ rights argument, Professor Balkin said that Judge Tauro was “attempting to hoist conservatives by their own petard, by saying, ‘You like the 10th Amendment? I’ll give you the 10th Amendment! I’ll strike down DOMA!’”

That did make me smile. Be careful what you wish for Tea Partiers.

[Rysto]

@Oakminster

I think Scalia may surprise some people if he gets to rule on the Equal Protection case. I’d expect his opinion to be something like: Equal means equal. Gays can marry each other if they wanna. They’ll burn in Hell forever, but that issue is not before this Court.

Scalia is on record as saying that gays are equal to straights because a gay man can marry a woman just like a straight man can. There is zero chance that Scalia will do anything other than vote the party line.

[UltraVires]

@Rumor_Watkins

The bits about them having an impaired ability to structure integral operations in areas of traditional governmental functions because they’re threatened with a loss of federal subsidies is a bit eyebrow-raising to me.

That’s the way I looked at it. If we take his line of thinking to the bottom, we will be going back to before Gibbons v. Ogden. Virtually every element of federal spending will certainly touch on something that is a state function and will be held to be in violation of the 10th amendment. As long as we are consistent with that, I am all for it!

For example, isn’t this in direction contradiction with South Dakota v. Dole?

[waterj2]

@jtgain

That’s the way I looked at it. If we take his line of thinking to the bottom, we will be going back to before Gibbons v. Ogden. Virtually every element of federal spending will certainly touch on something that is a state function and will be held to be in violation of the 10th amendment. As long as we are consistent with that, I am all for it!

For example, isn’t this in direction contradiction with South Dakota v. Dole?

The judge took a bit of a shortcut there, and simply used the constitutionality prong of the Dole test, relying on his own decision in the companion case. He didn’t address the germaneness prong, which the Commonwealth had also raised.

[Paul_in_Qatar]

I honestly suspect both Scalia and Thomas are nuts.

In any case, it is amusing to see the Tea Party’s Tenth Amendment being invoked in this way. Since marriage is a non-economic activity, I do not see how Congress can regulate under the Tenth.

[Rumor_Watkins]

@Paul_in_Qatar

I honestly suspect both Scalia and Thomas are nuts.

In any case, it is amusing to see the Tea Party’s Tenth Amendment being invoked in this way. Since marriage is a non-economic activity, I do not see how Congress can regulate under the Tenth.

they’re not regulating marriage. they’re regulating the outlay of federal funds based on marriage. big difference. now, this judge feels that that’s an impermissible regulation nonetheless, but not because of the subject matter of the law isn’t allowed under the 10th amendment.

[Jophiel]

Speaking of the Supreme Court, is there any reason why the “losing” parties would have to appeal? Wouldn’t the Obama administration be responsible for appealing for Health & Human Services or OPM? Could they just say “Whoops… looks like it’s unconstitutional. Ain’t that a corker…” and let it drop?

[Rumor_Watkins]

@Jophiel

Speaking of the Supreme Court, is there any reason why the “losing” parties would have to appeal? Wouldn’t the Obama administration be responsible for appealing for Health & Human Services or OPM? Could they just say “Whoops… looks like it’s unconstitutional. Ain’t that a corker…” and let it drop?

Interested third parties can intervene as (in this case) appellants if it looks like it’s going to be a phone-in kind of job.