The Associated Press covers the news. We will have a press release issued shortly.
In the meantime, William Duncan comments at National Review:
This morning a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued an opinion holding the Federal Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. The court rejected the implausible argument of the trial court that that principles of federalism prevented Congress from defining terms used in federal law. It also declined the invitation to treat a law that considers the category of “sexual orientation” as equivalent to race (i.e. by employing strict or intermediate scrutiny judicial review). The court very clearly says that under the normal approach the courts would use to determine whether Congress had a “rational basis” in passing a law, DOMA would be upheld.
... So, why is DOMA unconstitutional? The court concludes that there is a new legal standard that has been emerging in the law whereby the U.S. Supreme Court has “intensified scrutiny of purported justifications where minorities are subject to discrepant treatment and have limited the permissible justifications.”
... To recap: Three judges on a federal appeals court purported to apply two amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the Tenth and Fourteenth, to Congress’ definition of marriage which forecloses same-sex marriage for federal-law purposes. The panel said the law did not exceed Congress’ power and would be valid under any analysis used between the time of the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) and 1973. The panel said, however, that since 1973 the implications of a handful of U.S. Supreme Court decisions have newly invested the federal courts with a power to second-guess Congress’s purposes. In this case, these three judges decided Congress’s rationales for preserving in law what has been the overwhelming norm of marriage (probably unanimous) for millennia just didn’t measure up.
45 Comments
I have stopped going to Starbucks since they put their nose where it doesn't belong.
But folks, we need to also weigh in JC Penney's assault on the traditional family with their disgusting new ads showing 'same-sex 'families'.
Visit their site on Facebook and let them know what you think:
https://www.facebook.com/jcp
2012: The height of the Culture War.
@ Zack
Agreed. Why do I have to move to one of 6 states that currenly allows gay marriage? I love Dallas, my family, and husband, but Im denied the same rights as my heterosexual counterparts here and gay borthers and sisters in other states.
The marriage issue would not bother me so much if it did not impact my life in a very real way. There was a time where my partner was told he could not visit me in the hospital after I was in a car crash. (2003). People who support NOM believe in traditional marriage, I get that. But do they understand the rights and human dignity that they strip from a vulerable minority? Nothing about me being married to the man I love would change anything in anyones life except mine and his. I take that back... Many people would be effected. My family and friends would love to see us married in the same manner as our counterparts. In fact, one of my best friends told me that she got angry thinking that she sent me to an invitation to her wedding to a man she had been with for 3 years, yet I cannot legally obtain recognition for my 6 year relationship.
Remember when you vote on peoples rights, you may not be effected in the slightest, but you harm those who are still hated, feared and vilified under the guise of moral and religious values.
The end stretch in attaining equality in the United States is finally here.
Austin,
That was exceptionally well stated. No snark, no vitriol, just a simple plea to embrace the FULL humanity of gay people.
Good job.
@Austin
I believe everyone should have equal rights, but Marriage doesn't need to be redefined to accomplish that.
And why do you have to move to 6 states that allow same-sex marriage? Because that's how the Founders set this country up. That is the beauty of diversity. If you are uncomfortable with the laws or political make up of the state you live in, then move to a state that is more in tune with your values.
If you want to say you are married, fine do it. But I oppose any law that says man-hood and woman-hood are the same. Whether or not that that's the intention, is what redefiniting marriage does.
Austin, why is it that outlawing polygamy and inscestuous marriages do not strip the rights and human dignity from a vulnerable minority? Could it be that homosexuals can no longer be considered "vulnerable" anymore? Could it be that they have gained so much wealth and influence over the years that they have managed to convince judges and legislators that their desires constitute rights that can still be denied other groups with fringe sexual practices?
And you seem be be oblivious of how people of faith are hated, feared, and vilified by activists like yourself for believing in the values that support the natural family, all in the name of love and tolerance.
"[G]overning precedents under both heads combine...to require a closer than usual review based in part on discrepant impact among married couples and in part on the importance of state interests in regulating marriage." op at 11
The new legal standard, which had never been clearly been articulated by a Supreme Court majority opinion, is purpotedly rooted in the combination of federalism and equal protection concerns. Indeed, this very same ruling reaffirmed that there is no right to same-sex "marriage".
@Austin
Unfortunately, your relationship affects a lot more people than you think. It affects the church which is threatened with lawsuits for teaching biblical authority. It affects people who are fired because they believe in traditional marriage. It affects children in schools who will be subjected to homosexual literature under the guise of 'equality'. It affects businesses who choose not to involve themselves with the SSM issues. For examples, take a look at what is happening in England to those who don't support your view. Look at what has happened in Mass. since they approved gay marriage. If it only affected you, I would say, go for it. But it affects society as a whole. Re: hospital visitation, I believe a health care proxy can take care of that. There are other ways to get what you want, unless you are just looking for the tax advantages that marriage gives people, in which case, sorry, but society discriminates all the time, for the benefit of society itself. Marriage is not a right. It is a privilege given by society to two people based on their gender.
There are 2 parts to the DOMA:
section 2) Powers reserved to the states
section 3) Definition of marriage (for federal purposes)
As far as I know all challenges have been limited to section 3. In states with ssm, married ss couples want the same federal benefits as married os couples.
Quite frankly, I cannot think of any reason why the federal gov't should treat married os and ss couples in MA. differently.
Section 2, however, is vitally important to the states that have constitutional amendments defining marriage.
If only section 3 of the DOMA is declared unconstitutional, will that affect other states?
Austin -
You embarked on a lifestyle knowing that that lifestyle would make you be treated differently from lifestyles involving people of the opposite sex. Eyes wide open.
In your choice, the question in my mind is why should I support it? What does it do for society, what does it do for the taxpayers, and what does it do for children? It goes completely against the ideal of marriage: to join men and women with their offspring,and institution whose benefits to society have been proven for thousands of years.
So forgive me if I don't cry for your emotional story; but you chose that life. Live it as best you can, but don't expect society and government to rally in support of you just because you and your family are inconvenienced by your own doing. Boo-effing-hoo.
Austin - Your posting is a breath of fresh air as it shows the human side of the marriage equality issue which is what the issue is all about. Marriage equality is not some "evil agenda" aimed at somehow "destroying" the marriages of heterosexuals. I use the example of a gay American friend of mine, a salt of the earth midwesterner, who lived abroad when I did years ago and has had a foreign partner for 14 years who would like to return to the US to be near his parents as they age. No amount of time spent with a lawyer will allow my friend partner to legally reside in the US. My friend would not have this problem if he were heterosexual and had an opposite-sex partner. As for Zack's post, we have this pesky Constitution here in the US which no state can defy because its residents don't like a particular group of people. Thus DOMA does not measure up constitutionally. As for Son of Adam's post, show me someone who is born a polygamist, who struggles with the decision to inform his or her family that they are a polygamist. The polygamist comparison made by opponents marriage equality is so lame and almost as bad as the people marrying their pets comparison. We cannot deny woman or blacks or any other group the right to vote because it is unconstitutional to do so. But we can say everyone is entitled to just 1 vote as long as all are entitled to just 1 vote.
Interesting. The First Circuit Court actually said that: 1) under rational basis review DOMA would be upheld; 2) Baker v. Nelson is binding precedent and forecloses them from deciding whether ssm is a constitutional right, notwithstanding Lawrence and Romer; and 3) they cannot give intermediate scrutiny to sexual preference classifications.
But, as Bill Duncan explained, the court decided to use some kind of new analysis based on the "implications" of a few SCOTUS decisions.
As an LGBT litigator put it:
"I heart the Boudin opinion. It is so wacky. 'Here’s a totally new form of rational basis review that I just made up!' Also, Federalism-based heightened scrutiny. He’s sort of off in his own little Equal Protection/Federalism world."
http://abovethelaw.com/2012/05/even-paul-clement-cant-successfully-defend-the-defense-of-marriage-act/
Well done, Austin, and thanks.
JR, I agree, son of Adam is regurgitating the tired, already defeated argument. He along with Overcame and others who insist they are the last word on human sexuality is a signal of what is fading onto the past.
@Overcame
My apologies if my personal experiences made you consider the damage your views actually cause people. The damage is real, non-theoretical, and not couched on the premise that by damaging tradition or religious values that some how the individual is damaged.
All I have done was to lead the life that I was born with. I grew up in a very religious family and taught very conservative values. Nothing about my upbringing was influenced by the outside, in fact, I was probably a very sheltered child. I recall knowing at a very young age that I was atracted to men in a way different from women. I unfortunately must be graphic here: I remember that the first time that I, like every young boy, had a nocturnal emmission, I was dreaming of a male, not female.
I guess my subconcoius has lead me to live a lie and that my penis goes along with it. I cannot help who I am sexually and romantically interested in no more than you can. I will neer become a self loathing ex-gay who thinks that he was made wrong in the eyes of his maker. God made me the way he wanted me to be. I will live a life of joy, love, and peace. I will try to bestow upon my fellow man the kindness and rights that are deserving of every man and woman. That is all I can do.
JR, I people are not born polygamist anymore than people are born gay. Not even the American Psychological Association makes such a contention anymore. There is just not scientific evidence to prove it. It is just an article of faith, and a lame on at that. Just ask all of the thousands of ex-gays who testify to their change as well as all of the thousands of identical twins in which one is gay and the other is straight.
And Pete, indulge in all of the wishful thinking you want, but I think that you will find that the values that support the natural family is just as resilient and undying as the pro life movement. Not all values can be outdated.
No JR, what's lame is comparing homosexuality to heterosexuality and is just is just as ridiculous as comparing traditional family values to racial segregation. And yet, you and many others continue to indulge in such absurdity.
We can alter hospital visitation regs. without turning marriage into a creature of the state, barely reminiscent of its natural , sex integrative, child friendly status.
We can alter hospital visitation regs. without turning marriage into a creature of the state, barely reminiscent of its natural , sex integrative, child friendly status.
No, Austin, it is elitist minorities that oppress majorities. Have been for thousands of years. That is why we have checks and balances and separation of powers in order to thwart politically motivated, wealthy, and influential special interest groups like the homosexual lobby who wish their views to be sponsored and promoted by the government.
Daughter of Eve,
There is a very simple way to alter visitation regs and everything else all at once, without affecting marriage. We can get the state out of the marriage business altogether: the government can license civil unions to all couples who qualify, same sex or mixed sex, and all will get exactly the same rights. We can then limit marriage proper to those who would like to go through the appropriate religious ceremony. Then churches, mosques and synagogues can have complete control over the institution of marriage, while everyone has civil equality.
Another win for equality!
Son of Adam, we get it, you don't like gays and lesbians. Most people have grown past that and agree that it's just one more area that the laws have been unfair. What's good for you is that you are still free to dislike whoever you want.
Austin -
We all end up with different lots in life and we're born into our societies in which we we have to make a go at life. Making a life choice on sexual attraction is one way to approach life. Another is to abandon that choice for something deeper and proven; the choice to marry someone of the opposite sex, have children and contribute to the perpetuation of society; to be like everyone else. People with same-sex attraction have made that latter choice for thousands of years.
You made a life decision on a nocturnal emission. that's just unfortunate and something that could have been changed with appropriate environmental influence. Where was your dad when you were exploring relationships with other boys?
Live the life that you chose; don't expect the rest of us to change for you.
Dear OvercameSSA,
How exactly does it change YOUR live for the government to recognize Austin's right to marry his partner? What do YOU lose?
DG -
Whether I'm directly influenced by so-called SS"M" is irrelevant; it's a straw man argument. We don't make things legal just because they don't harm anybody. If we did that, we'd say let Tom marry his dog, it won't effect anyone but him, right?
So can we please put that lame argument to rest? Or should we talk about Tom and his dog some more?
OvercameSSA - Talk to Tom's dog. Better yet, get the dog to write a comment here.
Overcame--
Can we leave aside the lame "dog" argument? You can run a similar argument on the mixed-sex marriage: if a man can marry a woman, why not his sister? his mother? a six-year-old girl? We can agree that marriage is a relation between two adult human beings. The dog thing is both irrelevant and very insulting.
DG: he has to acknowledge the fact that he gave up the sexual side of his life for nothing.
Austin,why should I have to leave my home state to contract the only kind of marriage that has any value to me...a civil marriage required to be to an opposite-sex partner?
Escaping deserved penalties for wrongdoing is not a "right" of a group defined by their affinity for a particular wrongdoing,and being same-sex determines all same-sex sexual acts to be wrongdoing.
"Son of Adam, we get it, you don't like gays and lesbians. Most people have grown past that and agree that it's just one more area that the laws have been unfair. What's good for you is that you are still free to dislike whoever you want."
This is how the above translates: I have the mind of a spoiled child and the reason why my parents won't let me have anything I demand is because they hate me!
The moderator is deleting my comments. Thank NOM.
"We can agree to disagree" An old adage that seems to have lost its place in American society, especially in the gay marriage debate.
I do not wish for anyone to be silenced for their views on marriage. Believe what you want because your beliefs do not effect me. It is when you legislate your beliefs that I take a stand. It is when you can not justify your argument with logic or reason without acknowledging the hypocrisy of your statements I say "no more". It is when theoretical harm becomes scare tactics to frighten people to vote I call you out. It is when the religious beliefs of others interfere with my life I condemn conservatives for not holding true to their limited government ideology. It is when my family is harmed that I fight.
I will fight for equality until my family is treated by the government the same as yours.
Austin -
My arguments aren't religious. My arguments are simple: all individuals have the equal opportunity to get married in this country. Some decide to do so; others, for whatever reason, be it ssa or otherwise, elect not to. You had equality; you gave it up to be different. Enjoy your friend's - forgive me for being graphic - appendage.
If something is not the same, then there is no reason for that thing to be treated the same. Same sex couples are different from male-female couples. Never will be the same. Simple as that. You made your choice; fight away.
Still waiting to hear about your dad's influence on you growing up.....
DG -
The "dog" is not the point. The point is that you can't make law just because it doesn't cause harm to anybody. I thought that was obvious in my post, but you guys have a knee-jerk reaction to "dog marriage" that clouds your thinking, I guess.
"Same sex couples are different from male-female couples."
Yes, but currently they have the same right to try to procreate genetically-related offspring together. If we allow a couple to attempt to procreate offspring together, certainly we should allow them to marry.
We should not allow people to procreate offspring with someone of the same sex, just as we don't allow people to procreate with their sibling or a child.
Why are people having a hard time saying that we should not allow people to be created from two men or two women?
Ok gays are not made gay because of our father's influence. I'm gay and my dad was always there and we have had a healthy relationship. I also played football, tennis and ran cross country in high school. If I could I would of played more sports. I was also raised very Christian and we went to church every Sunday. I knew I was gay before my parents even allowed me to know that's a thing. My parents put me in straight camp and let me tell you no one there became straight. Even the ex lesbian running it said she wasn't attracted to men and she has been doing this for 20 years. I would lay down my life to protect my boy friend and will give everything I can until I can marry him.
Oh, Joel, we know it's more complicated than that. Austin was noticeably silent on his dad, so I was curious why. That said, "Healthy relationship" doesn't mean that your dad had the right relationship with you to help you avoid ssa and homosexuality. If a dad let's his boy wear lipstick without a fight, one might consider that "healthy," but it doesn't help a boy become a man. And, of course, we don't know much about your mom, do we? Some straight camp there when the staff doesn't believe what they're teaching. Sounds like your folks should have demanded their money back.
Playing sports, heh, heh, that's pretty funny if you think that's what I think is influential. No question it can be complicated as to the development of ssa and the decision to embrace it; but I firmly believe that it can be overcome (speaking from experience) and certainly the behavior, like all behaviors, can be avoided.
Yeah, I have lots of good friends who I would lay down my life to protect too. I also have an amazing wife and kids. You sound young, like many of the other pro-ss"m" posters here, who I'm guessing are more confused about their sexuality than they are "gay." Give straight a try; it'll save you a lot of heartache in the long run.
I have given it a try. I have dated 5 girls. You also keep saying it is more complicated then that but you won't say how? There is also no reason for me to "become straight" beside the fact that I would rather be with someone I love and am attracted too. There isn't risk of disease I won't have sex unless it is a committed relationship. I can still have a family I'm sorry but by the time I have kids it isn't going to be a big deal for there to be two dads. Also let's bye into the it hurts children to have two same sex parents. Even if it did which it doesn't there are many kids in other countries who need parents and are close to dying because they don't have them. Is dying worse then having same sex parents who love them? Even if you answer yes to that why should parents be allowed to have kids who believe that God heals all diseases and you don't need to go to a doctor even if you are terminally ill? Just take them away too. Also don't even start with the it is also mentally better for you because I wanted to kill myself every time I dated a girl and am much healthier mentally sense coming out.
I Apologize for my grammar mistakes my iPod froze and it sent before I had a chance to look over my message. Also I'm won't be on anymore tonight so if you want to debate I would be happy to tomorrow or any other time it doesn't really matter.
One more thing if you are interested in debating me on this. I can make a fake email quick post it on here and give you my real email from there because let's face it debating online is stupid and makes things uncivil. Also if you wish to conclude with something on here I can just reply to it later. Doesn't matter no worries!
"Austin,why should I have to leave my home state to contract the only kind of marriage that has any value to me...a civil marriage required to be to an opposite-sex partner?"
Louis- You can enter into an opposite sex civil marriage in all 50 states plus D.C. Just as a man can still marry a woman of his own race in all 50 states, even though there's no state in which in couldn't also marry someone of a different race. His rights aren't being violated even if interracial marriage disgusts him. A man can still vote in all 50 states. The fact that there's no state in which only men can vote doesn't mean the law is violating men's voting rights. How many examples do you need before you see that your argument is bogus?
Clemens must have gone medieval on the 1st Circuit because the appellate court turned into the Rocky and Bullwinkle show right before our very eyes:
Hey Rocky; watch me pull a rabbit out of this hat...
14th amendment - Louis has admitted he is single and not in any sort of serious relationship. There is no woman who is breaking down the door to marry him. Just read his redundant comments here and you will figure out why that is the case.
Joel:
How you feel about girls is not a rational basis upon which to insist upon the redefinition of marriage.
Hope this helps.