• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New York appeals court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act

Somerville

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
17,822
Reaction score
8,296
Location
On an island. Not that one!
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
This is the second ruling against DOMA by a federal appeals court

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?"
 
obama not bad.jpg


.........................
 
Poop - I did not see that a thread had already been started. My apologies and a request to mods to merge the threads.
 
Yay for striking down this joke of a law! Take it up to SCOTUS and settle it once and for all.
 
All of their victories now come through liberal courts rather than popular vote. Not at all something to celebrate actually, quite the opposite. It is a false victory to celebrate defeating the will of the people.

That is why beneficiaries of Affirmative Action are ridiculed, that is why the immigrants are so hated.
 
Last edited:
All of their victories now come through liberal courts rather than popular vote. Not at all something to celebrate actually, quite the opposite.


So a court and its judges are automatically "liberal" if they issue a ruling you disagree with? amirite?

(Dennis) Jacobs, the author of the majority opinion, was appointed to the court by former Republican President George H.W. Bush. He is not the first Republican appointee to rule against the Defense of Marriage Act. In May, a federal appeals court in Boston also found the law's central provision unconstitutional, with an opinion written by Republican appointee Judge Michael Boudin.


More on the "liberal" judge, Dennis Jacobs
Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs is a very conservative judge. He joined a court decision effectively declaring corporations immune to international human rights law —
even when they “trade in or exploit slaves, employ mercenary armies to do dirty work for despots, perform genocides or operate torture prisons for a despot’s political opponents, or engage in piracy.” And he once gave a speech to the conservative Federalist Society decrying the “anti-social effects” of attorneys providing free legal services to the less fortunate.

In a 2 - 1 decision, it was a Clinton appointee who dissented.
 
Are the courts finally going to recognise that gay unions are covered under the 14th amendment. Is this the beginning of the trend?
 
This could be the case that sways SCOTUS, imo. The inability of gay couples to take advantage of estate and gift tax exemptions is one of the most powerfully unjust and unfair aspects of DOMA.

I was actually thinking about bringing my own case in the Second Circuit related to gift tax issues. Would probably have been fun, but I'm not too disappointed. ;)
 
All of their victories now come through liberal courts rather than popular vote. Not at all something to celebrate actually, quite the opposite. It is a false victory to celebrate defeating the will of the people.

That is why beneficiaries of Affirmative Action are ridiculed, that is why the immigrants are so hated.

Federal legislation is not subject to popular vote. Never has been.

And you know what? **** the will of the people. Liberty is not subject to your vote. You don't get to vote away someone else's liberty because you think it's icky.
 
Last edited:
This is bad news for Obama, because now all Romney has to do is tell his bigoted right wing flock that if he's not elected, Obama will fill the court up with "fag" lovers, and laws like DOMA won't be protected.
 
Actually it is. It always has been and it always will be.

No, liberty is not subject to majority rule. that is the genius of the constitution. It protects the few from the tyranny of the many.

The idea that a courts should do what the majority of the people want is the antithesis of what america is all about. Unfortunately there are a lot of righties that think liberty and equality are great for "real americans" and everyone else is subject to their version of reality. Your comment seems to endorse that regrettable stance.
 
Yay for striking down this joke of a law! Take it up to SCOTUS and settle it once and for all.

Then perhaps we can get to business and get government OUT of marriage. Yes?
 
Romney, representing the GOP, was bound to get the bigot vote anyway. Actually, I don't think Romney himself is bigoted but every vote counts.
 
This is bad news for Obama, because now all Romney has to do is tell his bigoted right wing flock that if he's not elected, Obama will fill the court up with "fag" lovers, and laws like DOMA won't be protected.


I hope this was an attempt at sarcasm

because - Most Americans support same-sex unions and now even the socially conservative Latino demographic has changed its views - Majority of Latinos Back Same-Sex Marriage



and simply to forestall the nay-sayers, yes - a majority of African Americans are still opposed to gay marriage BUT such opposition is not enough to change their support of the President's re-election
 
No, liberty is not subject to majority rule. that is the genius of the constitution. It protects the few from the tyranny of the many.

No, it doesn't. Every last protection lined out in the constitution is violated right this very moment. Second, liberty is taken by the government everyday and it has been since government was created with only a few spaces in time when it wasn't. Hell, the entirely of this subject is about lost liberty and no I'm not talking about gays not being allowed to marry either.

The idea that a courts should do what the majority of the people want is the antithesis of what america is all about. Unfortunately there are a lot of righties that think liberty and equality are great for "real americans" and everyone else is subject to their version of reality. Your comment seems to endorse that regrettable stance.

Liberals on this issue alone are enormous hypocrites denying the right to marry for all sorts of people. They just make one more exception than the people you are talking about. Not really that much to cheer about honestly.

As for what I endorse, that would be the removal of government from marriage completely.
 
All of their victories now come through liberal courts rather than popular vote. Not at all something to celebrate actually, quite the opposite. It is a false victory to celebrate defeating the will of the people.

That is why beneficiaries of Affirmative Action are ridiculed, that is why the immigrants are so hated.

The will of the people does not allow you to strip the rights and oppress other people. Sorry, but democracy is tyranny of the majority, and not everyone is in the majority.

to put it in a way that your mind can understand it, under you values if the people voted into law a bill that said you personally could be imprisoned and tortured for the rest of your life until you die you would have no protection from the will of the people. Of course the courts would be the one place where you could go for protection from the will of the people. They would uphold that even if all the people but yourself voted for cruel and inhuman torture of yourself that it was wrong.

No, you do not get to vote other people's rights away. Sorry you think that should be so, but my rights are not yours to vote away. Do also remember that though the gays have not taken their rights by force, it is within the second amendment where I am guaranteed the right to put bullets into your fascist brain if you ever try to take my rights by force. You want those rights, come and get them. Otherwise learn to deal with yourself and stop worrying about what people who have no effect on your life are doing. I don't come for your right to date, have sex, or marry because you chose someone I find physically repulsive, so give it up on telling others about it. They are consenting adults so stay out of their bedroom unless you want to get ****ed.

I would really have to imagine you have some things about yourself you need to correct before you start pissing and moaning about others. Get to work on your problems and then come talk to us when you are perfect.
 
Then perhaps we can get to business and get government OUT of marriage. Yes?

How does DOMA get government OUT of marriage? It furthers government control over marriage.
 
Hey look at who was on TV today!

 
How does DOMA get government OUT of marriage? It furthers government control over marriage.

What? I was saying that once we get rid of DOMA we can start to work towards getting government out of marriage completely.
 
No, it doesn't. Every last protection lined out in the constitution is violated right this very moment. Second, liberty is taken by the government everyday and it has been since government was created with only a few spaces in time when it wasn't. Hell, the entirely of this subject is about lost liberty and no I'm not talking about gays not being allowed to marry either.

Why aren't you talking about gays lost liberty?

Liberals on this issue alone are enormous hypocrites denying the right to marry for all sorts of people. They just make one more exception than the people you are talking about. Not really that much to cheer about honestly.

As for what I endorse, that would be the removal of government from marriage completely.

What do you mean they make one more exception? Are you going to make some stupid argument about your right to marry a tree?

If you support what you claim then you should welcome the courts ruling here as DOMA is an impediment to your goal. But, I think you are a fake libertarian. If the government is removed from marriage, i.e., no longer permitted to restrict our right to enter a marriage contract, then homosexual marriage would be permitted and the contracts honored.
 
What? I was saying that once we get rid of DOMA we can start to work towards getting government out of marriage completely.

If that is what you wanted then I don't see how you would be so hostile towards the "liberal" position on this issue. It appears to me you are perverting that argument and misunderstand its meaning. But perhaps I am wrong.
 
Why aren't you talking about gays lost liberty?

Because its the topic?

What do you mean they make one more exception? Are you going to make some stupid argument about your right to marry a tree?

No, I'm making the supposedly stupid argument that you should be able to marry whoever you want as long as they consent. I don't see how that is stupid, but fine call it what you want. I frankly don't see anything stupid about that.

If you support what you claim then you should welcome the courts ruling here as DOMA is an impediment to your goal. But, I think you are a fake libertarian.

Actually I support the ruling. When exactly did I say otherwise?

If the government is removed from marriage, i.e., no longer permitted to restrict our right to enter a marriage contract, then homosexual marriage would be permitted and the contracts honored.

I know, that is the point. Dude, what the hell?
 
If that is what you wanted then I don't see how you would be so hostile towards the "liberal" position on this issue. It appears to me you are perverting that argument and misunderstand its meaning. But perhaps I am wrong.

The liberal position is not taking government out of marriage and that is what I support. While its great they support gays marrying they are not really going about it in a way I approve of.
 
Back
Top Bottom