BREAKING: Section 3 of DOMA found unconstitutional, violates equal protection

Although I am sure that the Obama administration with appeal this, tout suite...


====

Historic day for LGBT equality. Finally. We needed a win for a change.

A Federal District Court Judge in Massachusetts ruled in two DOMA cases today. In Gill v. OPM, brought by GLAD, the judge ruled:

In the wake of DOMA, it is only sexual orientation that differentiates a married couple entitled to federal marriage-based benefits from one not so entitled. And this court can conceive of no way in which such a difference might be relevant to the provision of the benefits at issue. By premising eligibility for these benefits on marital status in the first instance, the federal government signals to this court that the relevant distinction to be drawn is between married individuals and unmarried individuals. To further divide the class of married individuals into those with spouses of the same sex and those with spouses of the opposite sex is to create a distinction without meaning. And where, as here, “there is no reason to believe that the disadvantaged class is different, in relevant respects” from a similarly situated class, this court may conclude that it is only irrational prejudice that motivates the challenged classification. As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In a case brought by the Attorney General of Massachusetts, the Judge found that Section 3 of DOMA violated the Tenth Amendment...

http://www.americablog.com/2010/07/breaking-section-3-of-doma-found.html

comes to stealing elections and corporate personhood.

How is this any different? I do believe this will go to the SC. Loving will be precedent.

I wonder how long it will take to float up to the Supremes?

How many years would it take to get a reversal?

I hear this all the time - but the reality is there has never been a better time than now - and unless Obama wins two in a row followed by another Dem who is pro marriage equality the court will not be ready for another 20+ years.

Stops happening.


We need one more appointment to replace someone from the other side.

nt

John G. Roberts (Chief Justice)
January 27, 1955
(age 55)
George W. Bush

Antonin Scalia
March 11, 1936
(age 74)
Ronald Reagan

Anthony Kennedy
July 23, 1936
(age 73)
Ronald Reagan

Clarence Thomas
June 23, 1948
(age 62)
George H. W. Bush

Ruth Bader Ginsburg
March 15, 1933
(age 77)
Bill Clinton

Stephen Breyer
August 15, 1938
(age 71)
Bill Clinton

Samuel Alito
April 1, 1950
(age 60)
George W. Bush

Sonia Sotomayor
June 25, 1954
(age 56)
Barack Obama

Seriously, no conservative judge will retire when Obama is president. They'd rather serve till they're dead from old age or disease then give a democrat the power to replace them.

The only one of those 5 who I could see maybe retiring under Obama is Justice Kennedy, but only if Republicans controlled the senate, in order to make sure that a more moderate justice replaced him instead of a total radical.

:mad:

Will he call his good buddy Rev. Warren for moral guidance?

Edit: Silly me, I added text after putting n/t in the subject line.

Now we need a win in Calif.!

PS - It will be a travesty if the Justice Dept. files an appeal.

The judge in the case was Joseph Tauro, I believe he was appointed by Nixon.

Though I have to wonder why it took 14 years to get to this point.

Awesome!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/22/politics/washingtonpost/main6606544.shtml

the couples are still left out. It does offer insurance for couples but thats not part of the Medical Leave Act.

I'll be spreading it around.

Love the ruling, but will the administration file an appeal?

I guess i am a glass half empty kinda guy. :hi:

I didn't mean literally just this second, it was more in the "this will probably be next" vein. Squirrel.

To be clear, the record on GLBT issues has "not met expectations", but I don't think the administration will do anything at all regarding this latest ruling. It doesn't make any political sense to even comment on it unless asked.

GLAD - who is involved in the case fully believes they will appeal.

Because it's "the law of the land" and they are being "forced" to defend it. I imagine DOMA will be the same story.

:rofl:

Would you care to lay odds on it? I'm willing to lay down some cash...
if you have more than ROFLs to offer to cover when you lose...

:evilgrin:

I'll cop to bitter if he cops to being cheap lol!

Actually, it's like shooting fish in a barrel to surmise whether or not the administration will appeal it. I'm just wondering if the appeal will say they are appealing it because it a) is the Law Of The Land, or; (B) will they argue that we are disgusting pervert child molesters again?

:toast:

:toast: this round on me :)

Well, actually I do. Realism is sinking in.

But still...damn, after that loathsome veto last night from that loathsome governor in Hawaii, this is so nice. :-)

The DOJ will probably appeal, but the argument keeps getting weaker and weaker. Something has to give.

The system works too damn slow.

Equal rights for everyone!!