- Joined
- Apr 29, 2012
- Messages
- 17,868
- Reaction score
- 8,349
- Location
- On an island. Not that one!
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
This is the second ruling against DOMA by a federal appeals court
The court's justification for its decision
It all comes down to "What is the societal benefit which justifies treating a discernible 'class' as worthy of discrimination?"
New York appeals court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act
New York (CNN) -- A federal appeals court in New York became the nation's second to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act, finding that the Clinton-era law's denial of federal benefits to married same-sex couples is unconstitutional.
The divisive act, which was passed in 1996, bars federal recognition of such marriages and says other states cannot be forced to recognize them.
Read the ruling (PDF)
The court's justification for its decision
[W]e conclude that review of Section 3 of DOMA requires heightened scrutiny. The Supreme Court uses certain factors to decide whether a new classification qualifies as a quasi-suspect class. They include: A) whether the class has been historically “subjected to discrimination,”; B) whether the class has a defining characteristic that “frequently bears [a] relation to ability to perform or contribute to society,” C) whether the class exhibits “obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics that define them as a discrete group;” and D) whether the class is “a minority or politically powerless.” Immutability and lack of political power are not strictly necessary factors to identify a suspect class. Nevertheless, immutability and political power are indicative, and we consider them here. In this case, all four factors justify heightened scrutiny: A) homosexuals as a group have historically endured persecution and discrimination; B) homosexuality has no relation to aptitude or ability to contribute to society; C) homosexuals are a discernible group with non-obvious distinguishing characteristics, especially in the subset of those who enter same-sex marriages; and D) the class remains a politically weakened minority.
It all comes down to "What is the societal benefit which justifies treating a discernible 'class' as worthy of discrimination?"