Appeals court rules against Defense of Marriage Act

Oct 18, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Steuben Courier

A federal appeals court in Manhattan has become the second in the nation to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional.

Comments
1 - 20 of 48 Comments Last updated Oct 21, 2012
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

“It's Time to Defeat Terrorism ”

Since: May 11

NYC

#1 Oct 18, 2012
Manhattan Judges..? Is this still America of Zimbabwe? Like Justice Roberts who twisted the US Constitution to appease Obama, the liberal judges in NY cannot care less about this country and its constitution as they push 310 million Americans who believe in the constitution to live under tyranny anarchy and chaos while their basic human rights are deny by bunch of America hating anarchist judges. Roberts and the liberal judges are pushing America over the cliff by destroying the family structure of America that is a main pillar of the US Constitution. Evidently, Justice Roberts cause major damage to the reputation of the Supreme Court which is approved by less than half of the American people that saw Roberts becoming sold-out tool by Obama to force non-constitutional decisions that harmed the liberty and freedom of the American people. Roberts blind support of Obama’s health hoax and forcing Americans to buy Obama health care by calling it tax by Roberts cause major blow to the US Constitution. American have no idea what Roberts will decide next when the US Constitution became for him secondary to the rule of Obama and his foreign agenda of socialism and communism that deny basic human rights of the American people.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#2 Oct 18, 2012
Another TRUE consvative judge who understands the constitution.

Good job!

I expect Justice Roberts will write the majority opinion when the SCOTUS follows suit and overturns DOMA next spring.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#3 Oct 18, 2012
"law is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define marriage and denies married gay couples federal benefits given to heterosexual married couples, including the ability to file joint tax returns."

States cannot define marriage in a way that usurps the authority of the U.S. Constitution. Every state is agreed to be bound by the U.S. Constitution as the Supreme Law of the nation.

An un-Constitutional state law cannot reasonably expect to have full faith and credit with the other states.

Federal benefits are not conditioned on state law definitions of marriage. Marriage is by definition between a man and a woman, male and female, husband and wife, as every High Court decision that touches on marriage shows.

Let the gays have their "joint tax returns" but not with the use of the word marriage. Let them find another word for their unions, partnerships, and write the law so it includes for homosexuals the rights available to heterosexuals although such a scenario defies reason.

The High Court is not gonna uphold this New York Appeals Court decision.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#4 Oct 18, 2012
WMCOL wrote:
"law is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define marriage and denies married gay couples federal benefits given to heterosexual married couples, including the ability to file joint tax returns."
States cannot define marriage in a way that usurps the authority of the U.S. Constitution. Every state is agreed to be bound by the U.S. Constitution as the Supreme Law of the nation.
An un-Constitutional state law cannot reasonably expect to have full faith and credit with the other states.
Federal benefits are not conditioned on state law definitions of marriage. Marriage is by definition between a man and a woman, male and female, husband and wife, as every High Court decision that touches on marriage shows.
Let the gays have their "joint tax returns" but not with the use of the word marriage. Let them find another word for their unions, partnerships, and write the law so it includes for homosexuals the rights available to heterosexuals although such a scenario defies reason.
The High Court is not gonna uphold this New York Appeals Court decision.
Where in the constitution does it say states can't allow same-sex couples to marry?

Where in the constitution does it say the federal govt has ANY role in marriage?

You might want to review the constitution and in particular the 9th, 10th, & 14th amendments before responding.
Sheik Yerbouti

Warrington, PA

#5 Oct 18, 2012
Jeff Brightone wrote:
Manhattan Judges..? Is this still America of Zimbabwe? Like Justice Roberts who twisted the US Constitution to appease Obama, the liberal judges in NY cannot care less about this country and its constitution as they push 310 million Americans who believe in the constitution to live under tyranny anarchy and chaos while their basic human rights are deny by bunch of America hating anarchist judges. Roberts and the liberal judges are pushing America over the cliff by destroying the family structure of America that is a main pillar of the US Constitution. Evidently, Justice Roberts cause major damage to the reputation of the Supreme Court which is approved by less than half of the American people that saw Roberts becoming sold-out tool by Obama to force non-constitutional decisions that harmed the liberty and freedom of the American people. Roberts blind support of Obama’s health hoax and forcing Americans to buy Obama health care by calling it tax by Roberts cause major blow to the US Constitution. American have no idea what Roberts will decide next when the US Constitution became for him secondary to the rule of Obama and his foreign agenda of socialism and communism that deny basic human rights of the American people.
Exactly where in the constitution is a 'family' or marriage defined? How will gay marriage impact your personal life? Mind your own business and stop trying to shove your bronze age myths down everyone's throat!
turn mi back n fart

Hanoi, Vietnam

#6 Oct 18, 2012

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#7 Oct 19, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Where in the constitution does it say states can't allow same-sex couples to marry?
Where in the constitution does it say the federal govt has ANY role in marriage?
You might want to review the constitution and in particular the 9th, 10th, & 14th amendments before responding.
==========
Like I stated, state laws that have full faith and credit in other states must be U.S. Constitutional as agreed to by the states as a condition of belonging to the Union of States. A state can devise laws on marriage or anything else but it does not mean those laws must be accepted by other states and they are subject to the Supreme Law of the land, the High Court, which is the final word on states rights.

That Constitutional process will play out with the High Court deciding the consitutionality of the state law upheld by the NY Appeals Court. EVERY state as a condition of being a member of this Union of states agrees that the High Court of nation is final word on disputes, and SCOTUS has NEVER decided that ANY of their procedures are un-Constitutional. It will be the final word on NY gays having right to legally use the word marriage.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#8 Oct 19, 2012
If gays were serious about having same rights as heterosexuals they would find a word other than marriage for their unions and partnerships.

It is not enough for gays to gain all of the same rights as heterosexual unions but they want the word marriage to apply to them. As long as they get the "rights" they want why do they need the word marriage? Find another name, another word.

Why give up spousal rights you are fighting for, and that most people would not oppose, just because the word marriage is not available to your same gender unions.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#9 Oct 19, 2012
WMCOL wrote:
<quoted text>
==========
Like I stated, state laws that have full faith and credit in other states must be U.S. Constitutional as agreed to by the states as a condition of belonging to the Union of States. A state can devise laws on marriage or anything else but it does not mean those laws must be accepted by other states and they are subject to the Supreme Law of the land, the High Court, which is the final word on states rights.
That Constitutional process will play out with the High Court deciding the consitutionality of the state law upheld by the NY Appeals Court. EVERY state as a condition of being a member of this Union of states agrees that the High Court of nation is final word on disputes, and SCOTUS has NEVER decided that ANY of their procedures are un-Constitutional. It will be the final word on NY gays having right to legally use the word marriage.
You misunderstand the case.

The law being challenged is the FEDERAL DOMA law, NOT the NY state marriage law.

The court overturned the FEDERAL DOMA law which denies recognition of legally married same-sex couples.

Besides the fact that Mrs Windsor was legally married in Canada, not New York.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#10 Oct 19, 2012
WMCOL wrote:
If gays were serious about having same rights as heterosexuals they would find a word other than marriage for their unions and partnerships.
It is not enough for gays to gain all of the same rights as heterosexual unions but they want the word marriage to apply to them. As long as they get the "rights" they want why do they need the word marriage? Find another name, another word.
Why give up spousal rights you are fighting for, and that most people would not oppose, just because the word marriage is not available to your same gender unions.
Nope, I'll stick with married, which IS available to same-sex unions in 6 states with more to come.

There is no federal civil unions law, so civil unions can't be equal to marriage.

Btw, maybe if you anti-gays hadn't fought civil unions for the past 30+ years then we wouldn't be insisting on marriage equality.

You have no one to blame but yourself.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#11 Oct 19, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
You misunderstand the case.
The law being challenged is the FEDERAL DOMA law, NOT the NY state marriage law.
The court overturned the FEDERAL DOMA law which denies recognition of legally married same-sex couples.
Besides the fact that Mrs Windsor was legally married in Canada, not New York.
==========
The decision by the SCOTUS on the NY Appeals Court decision has nationwide significace in regard to gays using word marriage.

Every gay marriage law is impacted by the High Court decision, includes NY gay marriage law. States don't exist in a vacuum uneffected by Constitution and Federal law.

Doesn't matter where "marriage" took place. That only goes to the Constitutional Full Faith and Credit Clause which mentioned earlier requires ANY law from any state or foreign nation to pass muster with U.S. Constitution for it to be honored across state lines.

The fact that gay "marriage" is not given full faith and credit across state lines means there is a dispute that is the purview of SCOTUS to settle.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#12 Oct 19, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, I'll stick with married, which IS available to same-sex unions in 6 states with more to come.
There is no federal civil unions law, so civil unions can't be equal to marriage.
Btw, maybe if you anti-gays hadn't fought civil unions for the past 30+ years then we wouldn't be insisting on marriage equality.
You have no one to blame but yourself.
==========
>>>There is no federal civil unions law, so civil unions can't be equal to marriage.<<<

Exactly, but that is what gays claim they want and that can be done without gays using the word marriage.

Anti use of word marriage for gays is not the same as anti-gay.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#13 Oct 19, 2012
Re-define cohabitation to include same genders and imbue it with same rights as marriage. Gays would then get a Cohabitation License.

But it is obvious gays are not just interested in obtaining same rights as heteros have, they want to usurp the word marriage. It is an attack on the meaning and sanctity of traditional marriage and not about rights at all, which as forestated, can be achieved without using word marriage..

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#14 Oct 19, 2012
WMCOL wrote:
<quoted text>
==========
The decision by the SCOTUS on the NY Appeals Court decision has nationwide significace in regard to gays using word marriage.
Every gay marriage law is impacted by the High Court decision, includes NY gay marriage law. States don't exist in a vacuum uneffected by Constitution and Federal law.
Doesn't matter where "marriage" took place. That only goes to the Constitutional Full Faith and Credit Clause which mentioned earlier requires ANY law from any state or foreign nation to pass muster with U.S. Constitution for it to be honored across state lines.
The fact that gay "marriage" is not given full faith and credit across state lines means there is a dispute that is the purview of SCOTUS to settle.
Nope, still wrong.

The case is about whether to overturn Section 3 of the FEDERAL DOMA law or leave it stand.

If the SCOTUS upholds Section 3 of the federal DOMA law, it will have no impact whatsoever on the ability of New York or any other state to allow same-sex couples to marry. It would just mean those marriages won't be recongized by the federal govt.

States refusing to recognize marriages from other states is not at issue in this case.

Btw, you also misread the FFC, but that's to be expected considering you don't even know what this case is about.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#15 Oct 19, 2012
WMCOL wrote:
<quoted text>
==========
>>>There is no federal civil unions law, so civil unions can't be equal to marriage.<<<
Exactly, but that is what gays claim they want and that can be done without gays using the word marriage.
Anti use of word marriage for gays is not the same as anti-gay.
Nope, we tried civil unions in Vermont & New Jersey & other states and they do NOT provide the same rights & benefits as marriage.

Opposing marriage for same-sex couples IS anti-gay, no matter how you try to spin it.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#16 Oct 19, 2012
WMCOL wrote:
Re-define cohabitation to include same genders and imbue it with same rights as marriage. Gays would then get a Cohabitation License.
But it is obvious gays are not just interested in obtaining same rights as heteros have, they want to usurp the word marriage. It is an attack on the meaning and sanctity of traditional marriage and not about rights at all, which as forestated, can be achieved without using word marriage..
We TRIED to get all the rights under civil unions for 30+ years but your fellow anti-gays fought us EVERY STEP OF THE WAY.

NOW you offer up civil unions when you realize we are about to achieve full marriage equality WITH the use of the word marriage.

Maybe if you and your fellow anti-gays hadn't fought ANY recognition of our unions for the past 30+ years..........

But that ship has sailed. Now it's marriage equality, whether you like it or not.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#17 Oct 19, 2012
All the High Court is gonna do in hearing NY Appeals Court decision is answer the question asked and not the ones not asked.

They will conclude that the law in question does not interfere with right of states to define marriage and that same gender couples not having same rights as hetero couples for Federal benefits and ability to file joint tax returns is not un-Constitutional.

Marriage rights come from a man marrying a woman, and a woman marrying a man. Those consequences are the criteria for recognition of marrige across state lines and for receiving Federal marriage benefits. High Court is not gonna change that.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#18 Oct 19, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, we tried civil unions in Vermont & New Jersey & other states and they do NOT provide the same rights & benefits as marriage.
Opposing marriage for same-sex couples IS anti-gay, no matter how you try to spin it.
==========
>>>Nope, we tried civil unions in Vermont & New Jersey & other states and they do NOT provide the same rights & benefits as marriage.<<<

That's why the laws have to be made better and more inclusive and the exact same rights hetero couples have with marriage can be be made available for gays without using word marriage.

The gay relationship rights and benefits can be defined exactly as marriage is for heteros without using word marriage.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#19 Oct 19, 2012
Change the law to give cohabitation all the rights pertaning to marriage and issue certificate.

Certificate of Cohabitation

This certifies that John and Joe are united in Cohabitation on this day the 19th of October in the year 2012.

This ceremony was witnessed and celebrated by
__________and__________

Signed by official__________

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#20 Oct 19, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
We TRIED to get all the rights under civil unions for 30+ years but your fellow anti-gays fought us EVERY STEP OF THE WAY.
NOW you offer up civil unions when you realize we are about to achieve full marriage equality WITH the use of the word marriage.
Maybe if you and your fellow anti-gays hadn't fought ANY recognition of our unions for the past 30+ years..........
But that ship has sailed. Now it's marriage equality, whether you like it or not.
==========
>>>We TRIED to get all the rights under civil unions for 30+ years but your fellow anti-gays fought us EVERY STEP OF THE WAY.<<<

Only and ONLY because you wanted the word marriage. It was not about the rights you claim but about the use of the word marriage.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Second Circuit Court of Appeals Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Where are they now? The Danbury 11 not... Aug 17 Cricket 23 1
Where are they now? The Danbury 11 not forgotten Aug 16 STOMP AN ILLEGAL ... 1
Court limits judge's say over $285M Citigroup deal Jul '14 working class 5
NYC Public Schools Nativity Ban Stands (Feb '07) May '14 asquarray brahim 2
Court: White House Must Disclose Legal Justific... Apr '14 Scrutiny 6
Ex-Goldman director Gupta to surrender June 17 ... Apr '14 Philip Cohen 1
Authors Guild asks US court to rule against Google Apr '14 lamer 2
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Second Circuit Court of Appeals People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••