Appeals court rules against Defense o...

Appeals court rules against Defense of Marriage Act

There are 47 comments on the Steuben Courier story from Oct 18, 2012, titled Appeals court rules against Defense of Marriage Act. In it, Steuben Courier reports that:

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

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Steuben Courier.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#42 Oct 21, 2012
WMCOL wrote:
This is what the Appeals Court declared unConstitutional in DOMA and it is the basis of appeal to the High Court:
"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.''
SCOTUS could decide the meaning of the word marriage or they could decide to not interfere with Congress by deferring to them for a solution since DOMA was passed by a bi-partisan Congress and was signed by the President.
You finally got something PARTIALLY right.

The SCOTUS could indeed decide the federal govt has the constitutional authority to define marriage for federal benefits. Though it will be interesting to see just WHERE in the text of the constitution those "textualists" like Scalia will find such wording.

But the SCOTUS must ALSO decide whether such a federal definition results in an unconstitutional violation of state's rights and/or equal protection for those couples states decide to marry.

So they could find the Congress has the authority to "define marriage", but that they did so in a manner which violates the constitutional equal protection rights of one class of citizens- i.e. same-sex couples.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#43 Oct 21, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
If it were "settled law", the all the judges and the 1st & 2nd courts of appeals wouldn't have ruled DOMA unconstitutional.
Since same-sex couples are able to marry in 6 states, obviously marriage is NOT just one man one woman.
Where in the constitution does the federal govt have the authority to define marriage?
That is what makes DOMA unconstitutional, and it's the only question before the court.
Try again.
==========
The High Court in Baker defined marriage as between man and woman. The SCOTUS decision in Baker is the settled law.

Lower Courts often miss the mark. That is why the issue goes to the High Court.

And like I stated, the High Court will uphold Baker or either refer the issue to the Congress since DOMA was overwhelmingly passed by a bi-patisan Congress and signed by the President.

When SCOTUS leaves an issue for the Congress it is called referring it to the people, the ones who made the decision.

Anyway how a state defines marriage has no bearing on federal law ability to determine who is married for federal benefits purposes.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#44 Oct 21, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
You finally got something PARTIALLY right.
The SCOTUS could indeed decide the federal govt has the constitutional authority to define marriage for federal benefits. Though it will be interesting to see just WHERE in the text of the constitution those "textualists" like Scalia will find such wording.
But the SCOTUS must ALSO decide whether such a federal definition results in an unconstitutional violation of state's rights and/or equal protection for those couples states decide to marry.
So they could find the Congress has the authority to "define marriage", but that they did so in a manner which violates the constitutional equal protection rights of one class of citizens- i.e. same-sex couples.
==========
>>>You finally got something PARTIALLY right.<<<

I get everything right and get paid damn good for doing it.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#45 Oct 21, 2012
WMCOL wrote:
<quoted text>
==========
The High Court in Baker defined marriage as between man and woman. The SCOTUS decision in Baker is the settled law.
Lower Courts often miss the mark. That is why the issue goes to the High Court.
And like I stated, the High Court will uphold Baker or either refer the issue to the Congress since DOMA was overwhelmingly passed by a bi-patisan Congress and signed by the President.
When SCOTUS leaves an issue for the Congress it is called referring it to the people, the ones who made the decision.
Anyway how a state defines marriage has no bearing on federal law ability to determine who is married for federal benefits purposes.
Nope, still wrong, and now you're venturing into entirely new territory to be wrong about.

Baker did NOT define marriage as one man one woman. It simply said same-sex couples don't have a constitutional right to marry.

Baker also was NOT decided by the SCOTUS, but merely stamped with their approval because there was no "substantial federal question".

In other words, marriage is left to the states, NOT the federal govt.

So Baker is no longer binding because since the passage of DOMA their now IS a "substantial federal question" regarding same-sex couples marrying.

The SCOTUS can't simply refer it back to Congress, since it is Congress who passed the law which is being constitutionally questioned. That would be like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.

Bottom line: the SCOTUS is going to have to decide whether the federal govt has the constitutional authority to discriminate against married same-sex couples.

You should have quit while you were behind.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#46 Oct 21, 2012
WMCOL wrote:
<quoted text>
==========
>>>You finally got something PARTIALLY right.<<<
I get everything right and get paid damn good for doing it.
Then you should refund every penny paid to you, because you haven't got anything completely right right.

You can probably keep $1.75 for your last partially correct response....

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#47 Oct 21, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, still wrong, and now you're venturing into entirely new territory to be wrong about.
Baker did NOT define marriage as one man one woman. It simply said same-sex couples don't have a constitutional right to marry.
Baker also was NOT decided by the SCOTUS, but merely stamped with their approval because there was no "substantial federal question".
In other words, marriage is left to the states, NOT the federal govt.
So Baker is no longer binding because since the passage of DOMA their now IS a "substantial federal question" regarding same-sex couples marrying.
The SCOTUS can't simply refer it back to Congress, since it is Congress who passed the law which is being constitutionally questioned. That would be like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.
Bottom line: the SCOTUS is going to have to decide whether the federal govt has the constitutional authority to discriminate against married same-sex couples.
You should have quit while you were behind.
==========
Same sex couples not having Constitutional right to marry is same as marriage is between man and woman.

If it was not a federal question then it is not now.

High Court approval with Baker is agreeing with what does NOT constitute marriage. Same thing. Gays can't constitute federal marriage.

Baker is controlling absent High Court setting a precedent and that ain't gonna happen.

Under our system everything in its utlimate resolution is referred to the people and that is the Congress, the representative bodies for the people. Government of the people, by the people, for the people. The people are final arbiter.

DOMA came from Congress and it is up to Congress to fix it if it is broken and it ain't. High Court is gonna maintain separation of powers and not infringe on the legislative branch. If there is a lack of clarity as to what the people mean through their elected Congress it is the job of Congress to clarify.

SCOTUS has spoken. Congress has spoken. The President spoke.

I'm finished with this. I gave you good information. You can learn from it or ignore it. Your choice.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#48 Oct 21, 2012
WMCOL wrote:
<quoted text>
==========
Same sex couples not having Constitutional right to marry is same as marriage is between man and woman.
If it was not a federal question then it is not now.
High Court approval with Baker is agreeing with what does NOT constitute marriage. Same thing. Gays can't constitute federal marriage.
Baker is controlling absent High Court setting a precedent and that ain't gonna happen.
Under our system everything in its utlimate resolution is referred to the people and that is the Congress, the representative bodies for the people. Government of the people, by the people, for the people. The people are final arbiter.
DOMA came from Congress and it is up to Congress to fix it if it is broken and it ain't. High Court is gonna maintain separation of powers and not infringe on the legislative branch. If there is a lack of clarity as to what the people mean through their elected Congress it is the job of Congress to clarify.
SCOTUS has spoken. Congress has spoken. The President spoke.
I'm finished with this. I gave you good information. You can learn from it or ignore it. Your choice.
Nope, still wrong.

Baker said same-sex couples don't have the right to marry in Minnesota. It did NOT say they COULDN'T marry if Minnesota changed their law. If Baker means marriage is only between a man & a woman, then no state could marry same-sex couples. Obviously that's not the case.

Baker is controlling ONLY IF the issues in the case are essentially identical- i.e. a same-sex couple suing in federal court under the federal constitution for the right to marry in a state which currently bans it- AND if nothing in the intervening years has significantly changed in jurisprudence regarding the main issues in the case. NONE of the applies here, so Baker isn't controlling.

The the people (through Congress) are the "final arbitor", then inter-racial couples wouldn't be able to marry in many states, abortion would be illegal, segregation would be legal, birth control for single women would be illegal, etc, etc.

Where in the constitution does it say the legislative branch is supreme? I think that kinda goes against the whole "co-equal" branches of govt. And I'm pretty sure the 9 current SCOTUS members would disagree with you on that theory.

So EVERY judge & appeals court which has looked at DOMA has gotten it wrong, but YOU with all your supposed expertise are right?

Talk about arrogance.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
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
News Federal law doesn't ban discrimination against ... Jul 29 Retribution 4
News A timeline of rulings, regulations about studen... May '17 anonymous 1
News 2nd Circuit allows sex bias suit based on gay s... Apr '17 Just Think 13
News Court Denies Full Hearing in MS Case (Jan '17) Jan '17 Anti Crime 1
News Agent Orange hearing (Jun '07) Oct '16 Ronnie Latour 99
News US appeals court upholds UN immunity from Haiti... (Aug '16) Aug '16 Go Blue Forever 1
News US court rules for Chevron in Ecuador rainfores... (Aug '16) Aug '16 Captain Yesterday 3
More from around the web