Boston appeals court rules Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional

[Apeman81]

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/31...onstitutional/

In the unanimous ruling, a three-judge panel agreed with a decision made by a lower court in 2010 that DOMA is unconstitutional on the basis that it interferes with an individual state's right to define marriage.

“Invalidating a federal statute is an unwelcome responsibility for federal judges; the elected Congress speaks for the entire nation, its judgment and good faith being entitled to utmost respect,’’ the ruling said. “But a lower federal court such as ours must follow its best understanding of governing precedent, knowing that in large matters the Supreme Court will correct mis-readings.”

At issue is whether the federal government can deny tax, health and pension benefits to same-sex couples in states where they can legally marry.

The federal court got it right. The federal government should not be defining marriage. That is not within their enumerated powers and should be left to the people of the state to decide.

The federal government should further not be attempting social engineering via taxation methodologies. Any free person should be able to designate another as their beneficiary, regardless of relationship.

It is this misguided usurpation of individual power that should be eliminated.

[Jack]

Obama appears to agree with you.

While the president opposes the federal Defense of Marriage law that defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman, he doesn't plan to pursue new U.S. policy on gay marriage, aides said, because he believes states should decide the issue.

However, Romney doesn't. He thinks it's the government's right to outlaw gay marriage at the federal level.

Mr. Romney has said he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman. He also opposes civil unions and has said he would back a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...545729926.html

Interesting twist, eh? The Democrat endorsing state's rights while the Republican endorses federal intervention.

[Tycoon]

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/31...onstitutional/



The federal court got it right. The federal government should not be defining marriage. That is not within their enumerated powers and should be left to the people of the state to decide.

The federal government should further not be attempting social engineering via taxation methodologies. Any free person should be able to designate another as their beneficiary, regardless of relationship.

It is this misguided usurpation of individual power that should be eliminated.

I disagree. The federal government already has a hand in marriage because of the various benefits it grants to married couples and also the fact that it grants citizenship based on marriage. Therefore it needs to define it.

The constitution and bill of rights were written with a definite intent of preventing the majority from persecuting the minority. The federal government should make gay marriage legal, not hand it off to the states.

[Trojan_Ripper]

Obama appears to agree with you.

However, Romney doesn't. He thinks it's the government's right to outlaw gay marriage at the federal level.

Interesting twist, eh? The Democrat endorsing state's rights while the Republican endorses federal intervention.

Interesting twist? You mean in how Obama flip-flops on issues...."Like he is against something one day and then for it the next"? His symbolic bullshit means nothing and only accomplishes and means something to those who are blind.

Handing out (2) year Green cards with STIPULATIONS for those who actually deserve citizenship as he promised when running in 2008....yippee...Defense of Marriage Act spuge (I'm evolving) and so I'll leave it up to the states to deciede. You got a real winner there.

Give me somebody who at least will tell me the FUCKING TRUTH wether I agree or not. You can have your untrustworthy, spineless liar.

[Jettin]

I think the government should be involved in marriage. It makes more sense for an indepdent voice to make the rules, then people who have morals.