DOMA found unconstitutional by 2nd Circuit

In the case of Windsor v. United States The U.S. 2nd Circuit Court has found the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to be unconstitutional, applying intermediate (or heightened) scrutiny.

Interesting is their differing from the First Circuit, which found no rational basis for DOMA, applying a standard of scrutiny that BLAG characterized as "rational basis plus or intermediate scrutiny minus".

The 2nd Circuit was not shy about saying that Baker v. Nelson doesn't hold up as a precedent requiring DOMA's preservation, either.

Link to the ruling text:

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/1afe4f62-fbf9-4e0d-a409-26ab7396971e/1/doc/12-2335_complete_opn.pdf

The number of courts ruling against DOMA continues to rise. Given the differences between courts applying rational basis review vs. intermediate scrutiny, and the number finding it unconstitutional regardless of which method of scrutiny is employed, it will be interesting to see what the SCOTUS does if it decides to hear one of the cases making its way up the chain.

 

Also of note, BLAG has nearly exhausted the $1.5 million originally allocated to it for defending DOMA, and they've lost five in a row.

 

I hope this goes all the way and shows that the fed govt has no business involving itself in marriage whatsoever and to not trample the Constitution by creating rules for certain groups vs the individual.

The fed has overstepped its' role by even discussing gay marriage and needs to back out of marriage completely

 

I anticipate riots in the streets if scotus struck down all marriage laws, but who knows, maybe it will be for the better.

 

You beat me to it. This part is important:

"The three-judge panel of the Second Circuit, which heard oral arguments three weeks ago, wrote, “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.”

 

They take a hit at the procreation argument too:

"DOMA does not provide any incremental reason for opposite-sex couples to engage in “responsible procreation'. Incentives for opposite-sex couples to marry and procreate (or not) were the same after DOMA was enacted as they were before. Other courts have likewise been unable to find even a rational connection between DOMA and encouragement of responsible procreation and child-rearing."

Basically reading the summation of the case it's clear the Justices are making almost the very same pro SSM arguments as people have been making on here for years regarding DOMA.

 

Heightened scrutiny is a big win if it stands. Such a precedent would have major implecations on the fight for overturning laws banning same-sex marriage, and not just overturning parts of doma.

 

And they address the religious angle too:

"Our straightforward legal analysis sidesteps the fair point that same-sex marriage is unknown to history and tradition. But law (federal or state) is not concerned with holy matrimony. Government deals with marriage as a civil status--however fundamental--and New York has elected to extend that status to same-sex couples. A state may enforce
and dissolve a couple’s marriage, but it cannot sanctify or bless it. For that, the pair must go next door."

 

Another massive chunk out of DOMA!

I am extremely pleased and extremely excited to see where this goes.

Mostly I am thrilled that finally they are using a standard that is higher than rational basis, though in reality that is all they needed apply.

 

I'm with you!!

 

Special rules for special people because they are so special. Has nothing to do with equality and is antithetical to it.

 

uh, can you explain what special rules for special people have been granted?

 

Yes I can

“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.”

 

I'll ask again, can you explain what special RULES for special people have been granted?

 

OK

“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.”

 

so you can't answer the questoion?

 

I think he's calling heightened scrutiny a special right.

 

Domestic, family, and property law are all matters to be decided by the state according to the common law. DOMA is a needless intrusion by the Federal government into state affairs. Right wing delusionals always say they believe in original intent and less government. On that basis these pundits should CONDEMN DOMA as a manifestation of needless big government.

 

Of course they would, if they didn't cherry pick their morals and ideals.

 

... and further proof that there is NOTHING of principle in the crazed ideas of these delusional right wingers.

 

Rahls dumb act is one of his favorite tactics.

 

DOMA has no effect upon Domestic, family, and property law and instead defines who is and is not entitled to federal tax breaks and governmental entitlements.

 

???? But DOMA is a restriction of big government.

 

pointing out your dumb posts is my favorite tactic. You've claimed special rights for special people yet can't articulate what that something special is.

 

Yep. That "special rights" claim, refers to some nebulous concept that I've NEVER seen defined in a legal fashion.

In essence, the "special rights" claim thrown out there by anti-homosexual individuals is BS.