Another Federal Judge Finds DOMA Unconstitutional

by ProudProgressive Posted 2012/05/25 21:00:10

Related Topics: Domestic Partner, Defense of Marriage Act, Obama, Constitution, Bankruptcy, Retirement, Clinton, Sex, DOMA, President Obama, Same-sex, District, Court, Same-sex Couples, California, Federal Judge

Read More

Read all 28 opinions

Federal Judge Finds DOMA Unconstitutional

Last night, U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken in California ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional in a case called Dragovich v. U.S. Department of the Treasury. The Clinton-appointed federal judge found that DOMA violates the Constitution’s equal protections clause due to the fact that, along with a provision of the state’s tax law, it limits same-sex couples and domestic partners from fully participating in the California Public Employees Retirement System. This marks the first federal court decision on DOMA since President Obama announced his endorsement of same-sex marriage on May 9. Two other judges and a bankruptcy court have similarly ruled DOMA unconstitutional.

twocrows 2012/05/26 02:41:47

+9
well - surprise, surprise.
it turns out that rights are rights after all. and judges [some of them, anyway] have consciences. who woulda thunk?
>> See Replies

More polls by ProudProgressive

Mike 2012/05/30 23:03:07

how can it be when there is nothing in the constitution protecting sexual orientation

reply
WBC_Sux to Mike 2012/10/25 16:44:35 (edited)

1: Build time machine (Tardis or Delorean, whichever your preference)

2: Go back to 1967 and either kill or convince Mildred Delores Jeter to fall in love with someone else than Richard Perry Loving.

3: Close the "Pandora's Box" and thus take away the best ground gays have for demanding marriage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.npr.org/templates/...

PANDORA'S BOX, THESE GUYS OPENED IT.

"Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights."

reply
Psyblade 2012/05/29 17:42:34

+2
What I don't understand about the "Defense of Marriage Act" is this: What exactly are they "protecting" marriage from? Other people getting married? As if allowing gay marriage will make all heterosexual marriages null and void? It doesn't make sense.

reply
sjalan 2012/05/28 04:07:16

+2
When looking a the law and basic civil rights, the basic civil rights will always win.

reply
EdVenture 2012/05/28 02:21:25

+3
Makes sense thanks for the post

reply
Pixie·MzAwesome♠ƤĦĂĔŢ♠ 2012/05/28 01:54:52

+3
woohoo!

reply
(▪‿▪)DoctorWhoGuru(▪‿▪) 2012/05/28 01:13:12

+4

reply
luvguins 2012/05/26 03:19:43

+7
This one man and one women baloney is strictly a religious construct. More attempted intrusion and disagreement with separation of church and state. Thankfully some judges
are seeing that.

reply
ProudPr... to luvguins 2012/05/26 13:35:27

+4
I'm hoping some other judges see the same thing:

reply
luvguins to ProudPr... 2012/05/26 14:37:42

+4
Me too, even if some are Catholic.

reply
ProudPr... to luvguins 2012/05/26 15:06:22

+4
Sotomayor is also a Catholic, so I think it's possible :)

reply
sjalan to ProudPr... 2012/05/28 04:00:33

+2
Three of these five should be impeached. One for tax evastion. One for accepting monitary compensation from a non profit group in exchange for a supposed speech on the law. The other for not enforcing the self policing of the court as he is charged to do.

reply
twocrows 2012/05/26 02:41:47

+9
well - surprise, surprise.
it turns out that rights are rights after all. and judges [some of them, anyway] have consciences. who woulda thunk?

reply
JMCC 2012/05/25 21:41:41 (edited)

+2
I do not understand this problem.

The contract of marriage was and is - just that. A contract.

How can we make some partnerships legal and some not without serious consequence to the world of business since the law cannot make a religoius moral decision?

Relgion and Law were separated for a reason. Do I understand from this that we now want Law to take a moral and religious postion?

If we do that then the rule of law may as well be swapped for the Law of Religion.

Which do we want?

reply
ProudPr... to JMCC 2012/05/25 21:48:32

+3
I'm not sure if you're arguing in favor of DOMA or against it. I agree that marriage is essentially a contractual agreement, and the parties to that contract, assuming they have the legal capacity to enter into a contract, should not be restricted by artificial distinctions.

reply
JMCC to ProudPr... 2012/05/25 21:52:39

I find I can't argue either way as I am unsure as to whether I am being asked a question of morality or legality as in this world they are not the same.

reply
ProudPr... to JMCC 2012/05/25 22:23:34

+2
I agree. The line between legal imperatives and moral ones has increasingly become blurred.

reply
JaguarSocialist 2012/05/25 21:33:22

+2
This isn't a surprise considering it was probably because it didn't pass the constitutional test when it passed. Signing it was a low point in the Clinton presidency.

reply
ProudPr... to JaguarS... 2012/05/25 21:46:47

+1
I don't entirely disagree, but in fairness to Clinton the bill passed both houses of Congress by veto-proof margins (85–14 in the Senate and 342–67 in the House). It also passed less than 2 months before the 1996 elections, which I'm sure was a factor.

reply
JaguarS... to ProudPr... 2012/05/25 21:54:39

That's true; his veto would have been overridden.

reply
randy 2012/05/25 21:21:45

One of the biggest problems in this country is the government and politicians stick thier noses where it doesn't belong, marriage in this case. There should be NO, ZERO, NADA, etc. legislators and no legal/illegal about it!

reply
ProudPr... to randy 2012/05/25 21:44:29

+4
There's only one problem with that - marriage is a creation of government. I don't mean that a religious marriage is meaningless at all, but in terms of the rights and responsibilities of being married, that only arises from government action. Married people are taxed differently, have different rights under health care coverage, life insurance, etc. It also creates legally enforceable obligations towards the children that couple produces. If we were to abolish legal marriage entirely, I think it would cause a lot more problems than it wold solve.

reply
randy to ProudPr... 2012/05/25 21:54:33

While I agree with that, many things when government created it, was a breach of privacy.

reply
randy to randy 2012/05/25 22:00:11

That is a small STEP in the right direction.

reply
ProudPr... to randy 2012/05/25 22:24:43

+2
So what's the solution?

reply
randy to ProudPr... 2012/05/25 22:37:45

Make the tax code equal, same legal responsibilities for spouses and children, if applicable, the church, mosque, synagogue or whatever should have the right to marry or not marry according to their faith and let the government recognize the rest. Insurance of all type should be privatized. I definitely see new business and jobs in my last comment!

reply
ProudPr... to randy 2012/05/26 13:38:28 (edited)

+2
I guess we can save a bigger debate over health care for another thread, but I have to say that privatization of the health insurance industry is one of the biggest disasters this country has ever suffered. Did you know that in most western nations having a for-profit private primary health insurance company is illegal? To me, health care should be treated the same way we treat clean water and clean air - everyone is entitled to it, and no one should profit from it. It has never made sense to me that we have an entire industry whose only means of making a profit is by denying the very services they exist to provide.

reply
wildcat 2012/05/25 21:03:00

+1
Hallelujah!!

reply