DOMA ruled unconstitutional - AGAIN

For discussion of politics, and what's going on in the world today.

Moderators: Blip, The_Metatron, Matt8819, Ironclad

DOMA ruled unconstitutional - AGAIN

#1  Postby BrandySpears » Feb 22, 2012 11:07 pm

In part, U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey S. White found:

The Court concludes that, based on the justifications proffered by Congress for its passage of DOMA, the statute fails to satisfy heightened scrutiny and is unconstitutional as applied to Ms. Golinski.

Although the Court finds that DOMA is subject to and fails to satisfy heightened scrutiny, it notes that numerous courts have found that the statute fails even rational basis review.

Later, he wrote:

The Court finds that neither Congress’ claimed legislative justifications nor any of the proposed reasons proffered by BLAG constitute bases rationally related to any of the alleged governmental interests. Further, after concluding that neither the law nor the record can sustain any of the interests suggested, the Court, having tried on its own, cannot conceive of any additional interests that DOMA might further.

Finally:

The Court has found that DOMA unconstitutionally discriminates against same-sex married couples. Even though animus is clearly present in its legislative history, the Court, having examined that history, the arguments made in its support, and the effects of the law, is persuaded that something short of animus may have motivated DOMA’s passage:

Prejudice, we are beginning to understand, rises not from malice or hostile animus alone. It may result as well from insensitivity caused by simple want of careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves.


Board of Trustees of University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 374-75 (2001) (Kennedy, J., concurring).

http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/201 ... of-ma.html
User avatar
BrandySpears
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 6389

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: DOMA ruled unconstitutional - AGAIN

#2  Postby Nicko » Feb 22, 2012 11:46 pm

From the article:

"Prejudice, we are beginning to understand, rises not from malice or hostile animus alone. It may result as well from insensitivity caused by simple want of careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves."

This is something that I have thought for some time. There are people out there who actively hate and fear the "other". Much of prejudice (IMHO) can be laid at the feet of human laziness.

It's just so much work to treat people as individuals.
"... I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."

-- Charles Babbage
User avatar
Nicko
 
Name: Nick Williams
Posts: 5866
Age: 38
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
 
Birthday
Print view this post

Re: DOMA ruled unconstitutional - AGAIN

#3  Postby BrandySpears » Feb 23, 2012 12:12 am

The ruling (Fed. judge appointed by GW Bush): http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/upl ... ?mobile=nc


"In this matter, the Court finds that DOMA, as applied to Ms. Golinski, violates her right to equal protection of the law under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution by, without substantial justification or rational basis, refusing to recognize her lawful marriage to prevent provision of health insurance coverage to her spouse."
User avatar
BrandySpears
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 6389

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: DOMA ruled unconstitutional - AGAIN

#4  Postby Calilasseia » Feb 23, 2012 3:27 am

In short, DOMA is a bigotry-ridden crock of shit that belongs in the bin.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
Moderator
 
Posts: 16278
Age: 52
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: DOMA ruled unconstitutional - AGAIN

#5  Postby crank » Feb 23, 2012 11:57 pm

Hee hee, this court basically said your nuts or a bigot if you push these anti-gay positions. I'm no lawyer, but this kind of decision I think is harder to overturn given the wording, you leagal types, is this at all CORRECT?
Image

Imagede omnibus dubitandumImage

Image
User avatar
crank
RS Donator
 
Name: Sick & Tired
Posts: 5288
Age: 4
Male

Country: 2nd miasma on the left
Pitcairn (pn)
Print view this post


Return to News, Politics & Current Affairs

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest