Appeals court rules against Defense of Marriage Act | General Discussion Topics | Forum

A A A
Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —






— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
Appeals court rules against Defense of Marriage Act
October 19, 2012
1:22 am
Avatar
at1with0
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 9243
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/ ... 2L20121018

An appeals court in New York ruled on Thursday that a law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman is unconstitutional. It was the second federal appeals court to reject the law, which could go before the Supreme Court soon.

The ruling by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals was in favor of Edith Windsor, an 83-year-old woman who argued that the Defense of Marriage Act discriminates against gay and lesbian couples, violating equal protection provisions of the U.S. Constitution.

The Defense of Marriage Act was passed in 1996. Since then, six states have legalized same-sex marriage but, because of the 1996 law, the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages performed in those states.

Supporters of same-sex marriage welcomed Thursday's ruling.

"Yet again, a federal court has found that it is completely unfair to treat married same-sex couples as though they're legal strangers," Windsor's lawyer, James Esseks of the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement.

Paul Clement, a lawyer for a congressional group that defended the law, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Brian Brown, the president of the National Organization for Marriage, the leading group opposing same-sex marriage, called the decision "yet another example of judicial activism and elite judges imposing their views on the American people."

Windsor is a former IBM computer programmer who married Thea Clara Spyer in Toronto, Canada, in 2007. The two had been engaged since 1967.

Spyer died in 2009 of multiple sclerosis, leaving all of her property to Windsor. Because the marriage was not recognized under federal law, Windsor had to pay more than $363,000 in federal estate taxes, according to her lawsuit.

Windsor's attorneys argued that the act violates the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees equal protection under the law.

A federal court in New York agreed, and the ruling by the 2nd Circuit on Thursday upheld the lower court decision.

Windsor welcomed the ruling. "This law violated the fundamental American principle of fairness that we all cherish," she said in a statement released by the ACLU.

The law is being defended in court by a group appointed by the Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, after the Obama administration said last year it considered the law unconstitutional and would no longer defend it.

The group argued that the law was needed to maintain a uniform definition of marriage, that it served the government's interest of saving money and that it helped encourage procreation.

The 2nd Circuit rejected those arguments.

The 2-1 decision also found that gays and lesbians are entitled to heightened protection from the courts, based on the history of discrimination the group has suffered.

"Homosexuals are not in a position to adequately protect themselves from the discriminatory wishes of the majoritarian public," Judge Dennis Jacobs wrote for the majority.

Judge Chester Straub, who dissented, argued that the federal definition of marriage should be left to the political process.

"If this understanding is to be changed, I believe it is for the American people to do so," he wrote.

The ruling did not address another provision of the law that says that states where same-sex marriage is illegal do not have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states that permit it.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman praised the ruling as a step towards equality. Schneiderman, who filed a friend-of-the-court brief together with Vermont and Connecticut in support of Windsor, had argued that the law was a sweeping intrusion into the states' right to regulate marriage.

The 2nd Circuit majority agreed, calling the law "an unprecedented breach of longstanding deference to federalism," the principle that allows states to regulate marriage.

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.

Federal district courts in California and Connecticut have also ruled against the law. The U.S. Supreme Court often reviews cases where courts strike down federal laws and it may take up the Defense of Marriage Act in coming months.

In its decision on Thursday, the 2nd Circuit acknowledged that its legal analysis avoided the "fair point" that same-sex marriage is unknown to history or tradition.

"But law (federal or state) is not concerned with holy matrimony," Jacobs wrote, in a reference to the principle of separation between the state and religion. "For that, the pair must go next door," he wrote.

The case is Windsor v. USA et al, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 12-2335.

"it is easy to grow crazy"

October 19, 2012
7:50 pm
Avatar
greeney2
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 10197
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I believe in California this issue was decided in the California higher courts, as unconstitutional, not in the federal courts. Are you sure this ruling was not in the New York State courts, rather than a federal level court? The US Supreme Court probably is taking the stance, this is an individual State issue at this point. Most of the States have seemed to work this out within each individual state, I think. At least in California, that is how it played out.

The difficult part of this is when some states approve of it, others do not. Federal and State definitions differ, so issues like filing State and local taxes get into a filing status problem. I'm sure there are a multitude of other conflicts between State/Federal programs.

October 19, 2012
7:53 pm
Avatar
at1with0
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 9243
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

[Image Can Not Be Found]

Why does government have to get involved?

"it is easy to grow crazy"

October 20, 2012
1:13 am
Avatar
En-Lugal
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 564
Member Since:
August 27, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Liberals kill me with the cherry picking of what is federal versus a state's right when it suits them. The Fed is way too involved in our lives and our bedrooms as it is.

The modern definition of ‘racist’ is someone who’s winning an argument with a liberal.

October 20, 2012
2:15 am
Avatar
at1with0
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 9243
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

"En-Lugal" wrote: Liberals kill me with the cherry picking of what is federal versus a state's right when it suits them. The Fed is way too involved in our lives and our bedrooms as it is.

I agree, though it is only natural to do and think what suits you.

"it is easy to grow crazy"

Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles

Most Users Ever Online: 288

Currently Online:
39 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

greeney2: 10197

bionic: 9870

at1with0: 9243

Lashmar: 5289

tigger: 4576

rath: 4297

DIss0n80r: 4161

sandra: 3858

frrostedman: 3815

Wing-Zero: 3278

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 2

Members: 23822

Moderators: 0

Admins: 2

Forum Stats:

Groups: 8

Forums: 31

Topics: 8615

Posts: 122994

Newest Members:

Jeremy Martin, PoorTree, Beechy, Film, melisablaise, Brian, Al Staton, lonell, Ielts4t, ieltstips

Administrators: John Greenewald: 537, blackvault: 1776