Doma Lawyers Back Out.

Like I said, the federal government isnt in the business of recognizing marriages. They are in the business of defining who is entitled to federal tax breaks and governmental entitlements.

 

Based on who they define eligible, which is defined as "married couples" - which is then itself defined as something that can only be between a man and a woman.

 

Nope. In case you havent noticed states are still free to define who is "eligible" for marriage. Like I said, federal government isnt in the marriage recognition business. States do that. Federal government merely defines who is eligible for federal benefits.

 

You'll notice that I didn't say states aren't free to define it, but the government is still defining what constitues a marriage in federal law rather than referring to the states as it does with other criteria such as age, and as it duely terminates said benefits based on each states individual divorce laws. This is the only example of a federal law defining who can't receive the federal tax breaks and social security benefits given to those who are lawfully married.

 

That is false under Massechusetts law which does not have any gender restrictions related to marriage. The legal definition of marriage has ALWAYS been a "power" of the States subject only to compliance with the US Constitution which Massechesetts law meets. The Boston District Court specifically addressed this in it's decision.

 

And I fail to recognize the significance of the distinction. If the argument is about who gets the rights in questions and why, whether the federal government directly recognizes marriage or decides who's entitles, the effect is the same.

 

Why if the federal government could actually define marriage, you wouldnt have 7 states with same sex marriage, silly. That would be the significance.

 

And when benefits are based upon "legally married" then the federal government must provide the identical benefits to all legally married individuals. The federal government has no authority to define who is and who is not "legally married" and cannot discriminate related to that legal institution which is defined by the State and not by the Federal government.

As noted, the "Republican" law firm that was going to defend DOMA backed out once they reviewed the case. Some like to say that this was because gays and lesbians objected or because the public objected but that is an absurd assessment of why they backed out.

I've never heard of a law firm that thought it could win a case backing down because of public opinion and I don't believe anyone can provide an example of that happening. Law firms are interested in winning cases and will only back out if they determine that the case is unwinnable.

DOMA Section 3 cannot be defended, it's that simple, because it clearly violates the 10th Amendment and creates a violation of the 14th Amendment. That's why the DOJ withdrew it's appeal and why this law firm withdrew from the case.

 

DOMA Section 3 does impose a "federal definition of marriage" and, as noted, the Federal government has no authority to do this which is why DOMA is unconstitutional.

Legally married equal legally married, period.

 

Nope, states are free to define marriage however they like while the federal government continues to define who is entitled to federal tax breaks and entitlements.

 

A reading of all Federal Law, such as income tax filing laws, inheritance laws, bankruptcy laws and Social Security laws all use the term "married" and that term is defined by the States and not by the Federal government. The Federal government cannot discriminate related to every single law that uses the term "marriage" by establishing a federal definition of what the federal government considers to be "legally married under State law" as that violates the State's Rights to define what "legally married" is.

If the benefit is based upon "Legally Married" under the statute then the federal government cannot come back and say, "Legally married EXCEPT FOR YOU" as that is discriminatory and a denial of equal protection under the law.

 

No more discriminatory than giving benefits to the married while witholding them from the unmarried.

 

DOMA defines marriage on the federal level, period. And that's not a power granted it to. Unconstituonal under the 10th Amendment, yet congress ignores it in many laws. Doesn't change the reality though.

DOMA = Unconstitutional and headed for the dustbin of history.

 

And yet another Federal Judge agrees; this time for pretty much the same reasons I and many others have stated all along.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lan...l-federal-judge-rules-in-california-case.html

Honestly, a six year old should be able to follow the logic of this and the BLAG -as in- "Not very bipartisan legal advisory group" have already said they're going to waste even more taxpayers' money by lodging an appeal.

What more have they got to bring to the party?

There's just no "there" there!

 

In a real sense I agree with this which is why I advocate abolishing all marriage laws and addressing "marriage" as a partnership established under contract law which is non-discriminatory.

For example, to me there is no difference between a couple living together raising a child in a "family" environment whether they are "legally married" or not. They are, in fact, living in a "common law" family which is a legal partnership based upon a written or more likely a verbal contract. This would also be true of a "communal family" which is raising children. They have also formed a "family" based upon "contract" and should be treated identically to other families partnerships.

Of course that is not the issue related to federal laws and DOMA. Fede al law does include provisions based upon the legal institution of marriage and the federal government cannot define what the legal institution of marriage is as that is exclusively a power of the State under the 10th Amendment. No one disagrees with this fact.

DOMA Section 3 imposed a "federal" definition of marriage that was discriminatory and infringed upon the State's Rights under the 10th Amendment and infringed upon individual rights to equal protection under the law under the 14th Amendment. DOMA is unconsitutional and there are no valid arguments that can support it as being constitutional. The federal government must treat all individuals legally married under State law identically under the US Constitution.