DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional By Federal Appeals Court In New York: Do You Think the Act Is Unconstitutional?

by AdriHead Posted 2012/10/18 19:00:00

Related Topics: Gay Marriage, Defense of Marriage Act, Supreme Court, Boston, New York, Husband, Sex, DOMA, Union, Court, Rejected, York, Spouse, Manhattan, Appeals Court

Read More

2,021 votes
Read all 3,897 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Yes, the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional	981 votes	49%
	No, the Defense of Marriage Act is not unconstitutional	1,040 votes	51%

A federal appeals court in New York has ruled that the "Defense of Marriage Act" is unconstitutional. Judge Dennis Jacobs rejected a section of the law that says "marriage" only means a legal union between a man and a woman and that the word "spouse" refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. A federal appeals court in Boston also found DOMA unconstitutional earlier this year. Do you think the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional?

HUFFINGTONPOST.COM reports:
A divided federal appeals court in Manhattan struck down the Defense of Marriage Act Thursday as unconstitutional, joining an appeals court in Boston in rejecting the law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. The Supreme Court is expected to take up the case in the next year.

rejecting law defines marriage woman supreme court expected case year

+49

Add a comment above

martin28 2012/10/18 20:05:09

No, the Defense of Marriage Act is not unconstitutional

+67
No they're basically defining marriage to be the only union that can produce a child. If two individuals want to be together because of their love that's fine, but that union won't be considered a marriage. I personally don't see how it's unconstitutional, when the constitution never outlined marriage to begin with. (I've stated my opinion in a non-aggressive way a now I brace myself to be bashed).
>> See Replies

More polls by AdriHead

Rubberneck 2012/12/22 06:49:08

Yes, the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional

The Government has no right to determine what goes on between two people in regards to marriage.

reply
Jackie 2012/11/06 13:14:15

No, the Defense of Marriage Act is not unconstitutional

I clicked yes because it is currently defined as between a man and a woman. In the past I really didn't see the big deal of why if someone wanted to get married then why prohibbit them. love is love and marriage between opposite sexes isn't held in the regardas it should be just look at the divorce rate. Personnaly I think that it should be harder to get married and you should have to have a good reason for divorce. The thing that changed my thoughts on same sex marriages is this if it is leagal than in school it will have to be taught that all relationships are the norm. Now on some level that is ok but now it says that you aren't just born that way but you can choose any way you want. I think it would cause more confusion in our youth and effect them throughout their lives. However if some is homosexual they should be treated equal and are equal. It is very hard. would there be a way to give equal rights to all without pushing influence on the young,if so then I am for it. I am not saying that if someone who is young is gay they are wrong. i am saying if it is pushed the wrong way it will lead to confussion on many to what their sexuallity is and cause problems they have to face in their own lives that could effect their furture.

reply
Jackie to Jackie 2012/11/06 13:15:06

I had clicked yes it changed my answer

reply
Tre 2012/10/29 18:49:05

No, the Defense of Marriage Act is not unconstitutional

I don't feel it's unconstitutional. In the past, marriage as we have always known it did consist of a man and woman and that's what the Act is based off. Now we are in a day and age where people wanna do what they wanna do and if there is an Act or Law prohibiting it that was created way back in the past, they start raising hell that it is unconstitutional. I for one don't give a damn if you like the opposite sex or the same sex. It's none of my business. However, I'm just answering the question. Another example instead of same sex marriages is people wanting to legalize pot now. It's just a different day and age now and people of this time can't seem to live under the rules of the past.

reply
Ross Ke... to Tre 2012/11/03 22:49:20

You can't compare drugs to human rights. You're just a hateful idiot whose afraid of change.

reply
Tre to Ross Ke... 2012/11/14 19:50:58

Bitch, I said I don't give a damn if you like the same sex or the opposite sex. Read and comprehend what I said before you accuse me of something you stupid bastard. And I didn't compare humans to drugs. It was just an example of another way people want to change things things. Not saying it was bad, just answering the question. Again, I don't give a damn either way.

reply
brittany 2012/10/29 18:06:41 (edited)

Yes, the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional

I mean if a law is passed that discriminates race in any way then ALL HELL would break loose, but if it's a law that discriminates partner prefference then it's ok? I'm not saying being gay is okay but what i am saying is that this issue needs to be treated fairly and the gays hardly ever get a fair fight

reply
Peb13 2012/10/29 00:11:54

No, the Defense of Marriage Act is not unconstitutional

No, it is not unconstitutional if you follow the teachings of GOD & his dealings w/man on this planet. Marriage is instituted & sanctioned by God.

reply
GLaDOS to Peb13 2012/10/29 02:50:47

Not really. Marriage wasn't even a word originally used in the text, due to it being Latin, whereas the books of the bible were Greek, Hebrew, and Syrian Aramaic. You really shouldn't try to claim that the word "marriage" is something it isn't, when it's a borrowed word in order to make the translation easier for those who speak the Romantic languages.

reply
joclair... to Peb13 2012/12/26 16:24:25

The teachings of god have nothing to do with our constitution, we have separation of church and state. However, the constitution guarantees the right to pursue happiness and that the laws are to be applied equally, discriminating against a group of consenting adults because they love someone of the same sex, is not applying the law equally. Everyone should be afforded the same rights to tax credits, the right to make life and or death decisions for a loved one, right now, a hospital can bar a same sex partner from the patients hospital room and from making any decisions should that person become incapacitated. Yet would allow a family member they may not have seen or spoken to in 10 years make those decisions.

reply
joclair... to joclair... 2012/12/26 16:25:04

Also, marriage, is a legal civil contract, not a religious institution.

reply
Katie 2012/10/28 15:36:04

Yes, the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional

+1
The Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional because we are supposed to have separation of church and state. Being legally married should have nothing to do with anything that the Bible, Koran, Torah etc. says in it. I think each church should decide who gets married in that church and interpret their own rules, but from a legal standpoint, sexual orientation shouldn't matter in getting married. And to all you people out there saying that God doesn't approve of gay people, the Bible also says that premarital sex, adultery, eating pork, reading your horoscope, getting tattoos, wearing polyester, eating shellfish, and not having a penis or testicles and entering a church are ALL SINS. And ladies, if you ever hit a guy in the testicles for trying to attack you or something, your husband gets to cut your hand off! So if you don't think God will let someone gay into heaven, good luck getting in yourself. Interpreting the bible how YOU see fit is exactly how people of different races and religions were oppressed, how women were oppressed, and how people of different sexual orientation are STILL oppressed.

reply
BobbyOuroboros 2012/10/25 17:46:48

Yes, the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional

+3
Well so far as I have seen the conservative argument against marriage equality is: "The sky is falling, the sky is falling!"

reply
WBC_Sux to BobbyOu... 2012/12/07 14:34:04 (edited)

Y'all gawt damn nigruhs gettin' on my gawt damn nerves with all that 'we wunts tuh be able to murry white people' nonsense, and any self ruh-spekkin' white who wunts tuh lay wiff a knee-grow might as well move to Afferker and be a damn jiggerboo iffin' that's whut they wuntz! Fehh, ain't no reason' fer the races to mix, these hurr folks said it and they dun gawts Buybull proof to backs it up! Uh herpa lerp uh gelp uh gerp derp!

http://www.kinsmanredeemer.co...
Race Mixxin' T'aint Crischun, by a Misser Paster Mark Downey.

http://biblestudy.wckkkk.org/...
The Kayne annuh Seitun Seedline, by a Paster Bertrand Comparet

http://www.israelect.com/Chur...
Gawd kuhmans Rayshul Segruhgayshen alsuh by Paster Bertrand Comparet

Nerr if these hurr fellers can say with Buybull interpuhtayshuns that Gawd is uh-gints inner-rayshul murridge how come we cain't teach that in awr sundie skools like the good chrischuns whooz uh-gints Kuhweerz gettin' murried? Whuts good fer the goose is good fer the chickun, I sez!

*spits another wad of Skoal into his empty Dr. Pepper can and puts on a David Allen Coe CD*

reply
Jeff 2012/10/25 17:28:02 (edited)

No, the Defense of Marriage Act is not unconstitutional

I meant to hit Yes. I wish you could edit your answer.

People who happened to be gay or transsexual were being discriminated against, and they had a right to be to able to legally marry, have children whose rights were protected by law, like anyone else. I

When someone has an a mistress or boyfriend on the side and has children with them, in my state, the children are thought to be products and heirs of the legal marriage, regardless of their actual parentage. DNA can accurately determine the actual parents. It seems these children would be left in the lurch should the parent die intestate.

The child of Arnold Schwarzengger and his mistress comes to mind. I don't know CA Law, but I thought since the child's mother was married to someone else, the child is automatically considered her husband's child unless it is brought to court.

reply
Yuki ~ ♦Lion King of PHÆT♦ 2012/10/25 14:29:35

Yes, the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional

+2
I'm astounded that, as of right now, there are only three votes ruling in favor of its unconstitutionality. We've come a long way from when the unmistakable majority thought it was constitutional, but I'm still disgusted that roughly 50% of the voters on here think that DOMA is, in any way, constitutional.

If marriage is a government institution, and has benefits attached to it, then it must be available to ALL consenting adults. We are in a country that values individual freedom, and this kind of discrimination is unacceptable.

If it is a religious institution, there should be no legal benefits attached to it, and then it should be up to each individual religious institution whether they wish to marry any set of individuals.

The fact that the lot of you think that it's okay to give legal marriage title plus benefits to only a certain group is abominable and shows that you don't really value what America's all about.

reply
WBC_Sux to Yuki ~ ... 2012/10/25 15:26:21 (edited)

+1
Nah, what's "unacceptable" is that they don't do it to the atheist / non-xtian hetero couples and all the elderly, blank shooters and barren wombs. Those guys can get married and they don't even believe in God! They can just stroll on down to the gub'ment office and pick up that little piece of paper that gives them those 1,049 state and federal level benefits and cross-state acknowledgement of the relationship and legal / fiscal / medical responsibilities that don't come with Civil Unions, and they can raise their kids atheist or whatever and you guys don't even bat an eye. I find that immensely ironic.

Mayhaps if you don't want to look like a bunch of favoritist dbags, you should discriminate more consistently... it's kind of lame to say "we don't want gays getting married, but if they must, call it something else when they do it and only give them a sliver of the same rights as hetero couples," but then still allow atheist marriages to occur in your buildings (don't know why they'd want to, when there are perfectly good government buildings for that) and not tell them to call it something different because they're unbelievers partaking in something that is supposedly purely a religious concept that tooooootally didn't exist in any culture before Judaism and Christianity.

reply
Jeff to Yuki ~ ... 2012/10/25 17:48:37

I meant to hit Yes.

reply
WhereIsAmerica? ~PWCM~JLA 2012/10/25 10:33:38

Yes, the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional

+5
I am sorry but I think it should be a states issue, not part of our constitution. There are too many things that should be states issues that are not, and I think that is a big problem.

reply
Flash G... to WhereIs... 2012/10/25 18:40:06

+1

reply
RevBH to WhereIs... 2012/10/29 03:10:49

How can it only be a state decision? Would a marriage which is legal in one state be legal in every other state? Would a couple married in a "sane" state both be eligible for federal benefits, if one of them is a federal employee? Saying it's a states' right issue misses a big chunk of the issue.

reply
Transquesta 2012/10/25 07:19:14

Yes, the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional

Insofar as it would usurp a state's right to decide the issue for itself, yes.

reply
RevBH to Transqu... 2012/10/29 03:11:57

+1
"Usurp" my ass. Check out the "full faith and credit" clause.

reply
Transqu... to RevBH 2012/10/29 06:47:14

You want me to usurp your ass? I'm sorry, but I don't lean that way. :-D

reply
RevBH to Transqu... 2012/10/31 00:25:07

+1
Sorry, my ass is big, white, old, and happily married. VERY happily.

You still didn't check out the "full faith and credit" clause. See the constitution, Art. IV, sect. 1.

reply
Transqu... to RevBH 2012/10/31 00:45:51

Actually, I did:

"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof. "

I'm not sure how it's even applicable here, though, except as DOMA violated or contravened a state or states' laws regarding gay marriage. If Georgia or California allowed gay marriages under any circumstances, then Congress 'may' be obliged to to uphold them as stated above. The default position, then, would support my original assertion: that such an act (as DOMA) would be unconstitutional. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... DOMA, after all, essentially outlaws gay marriage by defining same as between a man and a woman only. If a state has decided otherwise. . .

Great news about your ass, though. :-)

reply
RevBH to Transqu... 2012/10/31 02:17:25

+1
Yeah, my ass is OK.

The "ff&c" clause means that any legal status in one state will be recognized by any other state. "Legal status" can include the judgement of a court, or the creation or dissolution of a legal relationship, such as adoption or divorce. Marriage creates a legal relationship, so "FF&C" requires that a marriage which is recognized in one state is recognized by all others. By the same token, if you sued my ass in one state, and won, and I moved my ass to another state, you could get your judgement enforced in the state to which my ass had moved. My ass would enjoy no protection whatsoever by mere dint of its removal to another state, due to "FF&C." Savvy?

reply
Transqu... to RevBH 2012/10/31 07:28:48

ROTFLMAO!

Yeah, I savvy, but either way we're back to the same point. DOMA is unconstitutional. :-)

reply
RevBH to Transqu... 2012/11/05 01:11:16

+1
Yep, that's what the documentary authority, the interpretive caselaw, and or logical argument would indicate.

Some people don't like that.....Even though "It's unconstitutional because I think so" doesn't cut much argumentative mustard.

reply
2sly 2012/10/25 07:18:24

No, the Defense of Marriage Act is not unconstitutional

+2
It upholds what is right and true in this Country.

reply
RawRsaurus to 2sly 2012/10/25 19:28:10

Something tells me you failed American Government.

reply
RevBH to RawRsaurus 2012/10/29 03:13:53

Something tells me you never read the constitution, Sherlock. Which means you never even took American Government," let alone passed it.

reply
RawRsaurus to RevBH 2012/10/29 03:32:17

Actually, I took it my senior year and passed with the highest grade in the class.

Tell me, where does the Constitution discuss marriage? Where is it defined in the Constitution? Our Law of the Land was NOT drafted based upon Christian values contrary to what you believe. Sorry to burst your fantasy bubble.

reply
RevBH to RawRsaurus 2012/10/29 05:15:19

+1
Y'know what? I mistakenly thought that 2Sly was acting like a normal person and saying DOMA was UN constitutional, and "liked" his comment. Quel horreur when I realized he was a bigot. So I must retract my comment to you and direct it at him, while offering you my most abject apology.

I edited it to show that, and congratulating you, but apparently the editing diodn't "take." Art. 9 of the constitution says that the Constitution, not the Bible, is the supreme law of the land......so, even if I weren't agnostic, I'd have to say, Yeah, we're not a "christian' nation," because I've read the Constituion and its interpreting cases.

The Const. itself doesn't mention marriage, but trhe 4th Am. has been interpreted by the Supreme court to protect privacy in one's personal life (also not mentioned expressly). That interpretation of "privacy" has been extended to include sexual behavior between consenting adults (Bowers v. Hardwick), birth control (Griswold .v. CT), and the right to marry who you want to (Loving v. VA).

As far as the "Christian" argument.....I like to point out that the only prohibition on homosexual behavior is in the Old Testament, in Leviticus. Jesus was completely accepting of all people, and encouraged acceptance in his followers.......So opposing same-sex marr...

Y'know what? I mistakenly thought that 2Sly was acting like a normal person and saying DOMA was UN constitutional, and "liked" his comment. Quel horreur when I realized he was a bigot. So I must retract my comment to you and direct it at him, while offering you my most abject apology.

I edited it to show that, and congratulating you, but apparently the editing diodn't "take." Art. 9 of the constitution says that the Constitution, not the Bible, is the supreme law of the land......so, even if I weren't agnostic, I'd have to say, Yeah, we're not a "christian' nation," because I've read the Constituion and its interpreting cases.

The Const. itself doesn't mention marriage, but trhe 4th Am. has been interpreted by the Supreme court to protect privacy in one's personal life (also not mentioned expressly). That interpretation of "privacy" has been extended to include sexual behavior between consenting adults (Bowers v. Hardwick), birth control (Griswold .v. CT), and the right to marry who you want to (Loving v. VA).

As far as the "Christian" argument.....I like to point out that the only prohibition on homosexual behavior is in the Old Testament, in Leviticus. Jesus was completely accepting of all people, and encouraged acceptance in his followers.......So opposing same-sex marriage is anti-Christian. Real Christians (like Jesus) would give all love equal dignity.

Again, sorry I misread 2sly's 2stupid comment. If the ignorant were blessed, s/he'd be a saint.
(more)

reply
RawRsaurus to RevBH 2012/10/29 14:35:30

It's cool. No worries.

reply
RevBH to RawRsaurus 2012/10/31 00:28:19

THX, friend. I have to go now and work the phone bank for same-sex marriage here in Wa. state.

reply
RevBH to 2sly 2012/11/05 01:12:21

Are you threatened by all homosexuals, or just those you're attracted to?

reply
Eddie_says_OrlyTaitez_is_nutz 2012/10/25 06:12:01

Yes, the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional

Absolutely.

reply
CTF 2012/10/25 05:46:45

Yes, the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional

+3
Absolutely. The ONLY justification for such bigotry, is based in religion. Which would make it a clear violation of the government's requirement to avoid promoting one religion over another. Take religion out of the equation, and those who oppose gay marriage don't have a leg to stand on.

And don't give me that nonsense about children. Getting married & being a parent are two completely different situations.

reply
Jeff to CTF 2012/10/25 17:39:24

Bigotry is never justified to me, regardless of what religion you are, claim to be, or aren't, but it was used as a justification. Taking religion out of the equation simplifies it.

reply