Finally the Courts Give Meaning to the 10th Amendment

[Dungheap]

But I don't think this is what the States' Righters had in mind:

BOSTON -- A U.S. judge in Boston has ruled that a federal gay marriage ban is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define marriage.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro on Thursday ruled in favor of gay couples' rights in two separate challenges to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.

The state had argued the law denied benefits such as Medicaid to gay married couples in Massachusetts, where same-sex unions have been legal since 2004.

Tauro agreed, and said the act forces Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens.

The Justice Department argued the federal government has the right to set eligibility requirements for federal benefits - including requiring that those benefits only go to couples in marriages between a man and a woman.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...070804632.html

[Damocles]

I agree, but would have argued the 1st Amendment as well. Forcing everybody to follow the Judeo-Christian limited definition is a violation of the rights of Free Exercise...

[Superfreak]

But I don't think this is what the States' Righters had in mind:




http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...070804632.html

I would agree with that decision. I wonder though... would the same judge rule in favor of states being able to define 'life' as well?

[Yurt]

while a good starting point, it nonetheless falls far short of reality. DOMA isn't necessarily a federal ban on gay marriage, because there is no federal marriage....rather....it is a federal denial of recognition of gay marriage and any accompanying rights that the federal government grants to married partners and it allows states to ignore the P&I clause.

the 10th amendment is a weak foundation on which to build your argument against gay marriage bans.

[Dungheap]

while a good starting point, it nonetheless falls far short of reality. DOMA isn't necessarily a federal ban on gay marriage, because there is no federal marriage....rather....it is a federal denial of recognition of gay marriage and any accompanying rights that the federal government grants to married partners and it allows states to ignore the P&I clause.

the 10th amendment is a weak foundation on which to build your argument against gay marriage bans.

There were actually two decisions in two separate cases, one brought by the state of Massachusetts (by AG, Marha Coakley) and one brought by private parties, same-sex couples denied federal spousal benefits. The case brought by the state was decided on 10th Amendment grounds while the case brought by the same-sex couples was decided on equal protection grounds.

[Yurt]

I agree, but would have argued the 1st Amendment as well. Forcing everybody to follow the Judeo-Christian limited definition is a violation of the rights of Free Exercise...

this misses the greater issue....it is not just the judeo christian pov that is against gay marriage...it is most religions and there are those who are not religious that are against gay marriage...

first amendment is a weak cornerstone....imho...the 14th, using loving v. virginia....is the greatest tool to end the unequal treatment of marriage. if we use your first amendment train of thought, then we must of course get government out of marriage and i just do not see that happening....

[Yurt]

There were actually two decisions in two separate cases, one brought by the state of Massachusetts (by AG, Marha Coakley) and one brought by private parties, same-sex couples denied federal spousal benefits. The case brought by the state was decided on 10th Amendment grounds while the case brought by the same-sex couples was decided on equal protection grounds.

what is your point nigel?

[Dungheap]

what is your point nigel?

I'm just engaging in a discussion, hombre. What's your damage?

[Yurt]

I'm just engaging in a discussion, hombre. What's your damage?

do you know what:

your point

means nigel? you made a post...i will respond if you clarify what it is your point is. your post was just filler....if you could actually clarify, then you would actually be engaging in the discussion...

[Dungheap]

do you know what:

your point

means nigel? you made a post...i will respond if you clarify what it is your point is. your post was just filler....if you could actually clarify, then you would actually be engaging in the discussion...

I didn't really have a point. I made an observation in response to your post. Specifically, you mentioned that the 10th Amendment is a weak foundation to build a case against gay marriage. In response, I noted that there were two lawsuits concerning DOMA in which opinions issued today, one brought by the state based on a 10th Amendment argument and one brought by same-sex couples based on a equal protection argument and that the judge ruled that DOMA violated both the 10th and 14th Amendments.

That's all .

[Yurt]

I didn't really have a point. I made an observation in response to your post. Specifically, you mentioned that the 10th Amendment is a weak foundation to build a case against gay marriage. In response, I noted that there were two lawsuits concerning DOMA in which opinions issued today, one brought by the state based on a 10th Amendment argument and one brought by same-sex couples based on a equal protection argument and that the judge ruled that DOMA violated both the 10th and 14th Amendments.

That's all .

thank you cap'n obvious

[Dungheap]

thank you cap'n obvious

I'm confused.

[Yurt]

I'm confused.

as if you needed to voice this

[apple0154]

But I don't think this is what the States' Righters had in mind:

BOSTON -- A U.S. judge in Boston has ruled that a federal gay marriage ban is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define marriage.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro on Thursday ruled in favor of gay couples' rights in two separate challenges to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.

The state had argued the law denied benefits such as Medicaid to gay married couples in Massachusetts, where same-sex unions have been legal since 2004.

Tauro agreed, and said the act forces Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens.

The Justice Department argued the federal government has the right to set eligibility requirements for federal benefits - including requiring that those benefits only go to couples in marriages between a man and a woman.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...070804632.html

A note to Southern Man: This is just one example why the idea of civil unions is unacceptable. Even though same sex unions have been legal in Massachusetts since 2004 discrimination was still evident by the Federal Government specifying "those benefits go only to couples in marriages between a man and a woman."

There is never equality in anything that's "equal but different". One can not give the same rights to gay couples unless their union is termed exactly the same.

[SmarterthanYou]

I think this is an awesome decision. now, lets apply it to strict wording of all the bill of rights and constitution.