DOMA ruled unconstitutional

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Gelfin, Jun 14, 2011.

  1. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #1
    http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/57794777-DOMA-Memorandum-of-Decision.pdf

    From an unexpected quarter, the so-called Defense of Marriage Act has been found unconstitutional by the United States Bankruptcy Court's Central California district, finding that the law illegitimately prohibits a same-sex married couple from seeking a joint bankruptcy filing. The ruling was signed by twenty US Bankruptcy Court judges.
     
  2. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #2
    Yes! So what happens next? And is there an article too?
     
  3. Gelfin thread starter macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #3
    Here's the article that PDF was attached to:

    http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/06/bankruptcy-court-doma-unconsti.html

    Also of note is that, unlike other civil rights rulings that rely on substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, because this ruling involves bankruptcy, the ruling was based on an equal protection claim under the Fifth Amendment.

    I am honestly not clear on the wider ramifications. The ruling specifically invalidates Section 3, which is the "no federal recognition" section, but I do not know if this can somehow be narrowly interpreted to only apply to bankruptcy.
     
  4. codymac macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    #4
    Wow.

     
  5. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #5
    Awewsome! There are gonna be a lot of bigots crying in their tea today! :)
     
  6. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #6
    Sweet!

    God bless our court system.

    It does what no politician has the courage or brains to do.
     
  7. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #7
    Wow, this is rather unexpected, especially because, IIRC, Bankruptcy Court judges are NOT Article 3 judges (ie NO life tenure). I think that might be an even more important thing to note because essentially 1/5th of the Bankruptcy bench just stuck their necks out, and obviously feel confident in doing so.

    The longer one side of the political spectrum refuses to change position on this issue, the more untenable their platform is going to become.
     
  8. Moyank24 macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #8
    Wow. Interesting development from an unexpected source, to say the least. Like others, I do wonder what this really means for DOMA and what effect the ruling will have.

    I'm sure the religious right will say that all of 20 of the Judges are Gay, and therefore biased.
     
  9. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #9
    Who cares what they say? They need to grow up and learn that this is a free country.
     
  10. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #10
    You left out 'legislating from the bench', 'ultra-liberal', 'activist', and that the people should have standing. :rolleyes: ;)

    BL.
     
  11. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #11
    The people do have standing and so do the courts.

    It's only 'legislating from the bench' when it goes against something you (or I) support.

    Otherwise, it's 'upholding the Constitution'.

    It all depends on your perspective.
     
  12. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #12
    Not always. Remember Citizens United?
     
  13. Naimfan macrumors 68040

    Naimfan

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    #13
    Bankruptcy court judges are appointed under Article 1, not under Article 3.

    The most likely outcome now is that the Bankruptcy Court's decision will be appealed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Central California, followed by an appeal to the Ninth Circuit and then, possibly, to the U.S. Supreme Court.
     
  14. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #14
    Thanks for the info. I wasn't sure how it would work.
     
  15. Naimfan macrumors 68040

    Naimfan

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    #15
    And the creditor could, in this case, request a review by the 9th Circuit's Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, although I rather doubt they would.
     
  16. Mac'nCheese macrumors 68030

    Mac'nCheese

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #16
    Just doing some reading on DOMA for another thread. Bill Clinton signed this law? Clinton? Thought a dem like him would be against this, anyone know how he came to sign DOMA? I know why he signed don't ask don't tell, claimed a misunderstanding of how it would work and thought he was helping out the gay community. Don't believe it but I understand what he is saying...
     
  17. codymac macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    #17
    He was openly opposed to gay marriage, that's how.

    See his interview in The Advocate, June 25, 1996, p. 50 for his response to that question (interview starts on p. 44):

    http://books.google.com/books?id=hW...=bill clinton interview advocate 1996&f=false
     
  18. Gelfin, Jun 25, 2011
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2011

    Gelfin thread starter macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #18
    It's easy to forget just how far America has come on gay rights issues in the last nearly-twenty years. Clinton made a lot of dodgy compromises that were, at the time, arguably improvements to the status quo, but because Clinton's compromises were geared to balance the interests of gay people against homophobes, protection of a homophobic viewpoint became entrenched in law, and has outlasted much of the hate that powered it to begin with.

    DADT sucks, but at the time it was an alternative to burgeoning anti-gay witch hunts in the armed forces. DOMA sucks, but at the time Hawaii was threatening to become the first state to legalize gay marriage, legislators were in a panic that even one state doing so would make gay marriage legal nationwide through the "full faith and credit" clause, and it was the alternative to a proposed anti-gay-marriage Constitutional amendment that would have denied Hawaii and any other state the opportunity to do the right thing on it's own. In neither case was Clinton willing or able to open the floodgates to what we would recognize now as the obvious right thing to do. It was just a different time.

    Come to think of it, much as it has overstayed its welcome, DOMA may have ultimately helped by allowing more progressive states to act as laboratories for various kinds of same-sex unions without interference from other states, and for a sort of snowball effect as other states followed their lead. You could never get 3/4 of the states to ratify an anti-gay amendment now, and it's been going on long enough that courts have grist for the legal mill, so it's just about time for DOMA to go away and for us to finally go all-in.
     
  19. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #19
    You also have to keep in mind that it passed Congress with something near 80% of both houses; a veto would have been useless. It would have also burned political capital at a time when he had bigger fish to fry.

    Not that I condone his decision, but it should be placed in the appropriate historical context.
     
  20. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #20
    Exactly. This was also the strategy of Obama who during his run for president came out against gay marriage in order to not give the right too much ammunition in their campaign. It's pure political triangulation. But considering how close gays are to actually achieving equal rights, it may have been the right choice, despite my (and many other lefties) desire for a stronger, more progressive stance.
     
  21. dime21 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    #21
    Funny how this Obamma generation doesnt really care about what works and what makes sense, what's good for society, families, and kids. All they care about is lookin good, being trendy, and getting attention. Yeah there's a lot of folk's hard-wired backwards these days.
     
  22. Mac'nCheese macrumors 68030

    Mac'nCheese

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #22
    Thanks for the info Guys. I was not in the mood to sift through google searches and u all answerEd me perfectly. Amazing how much I can forget in a decade or two...really though Clinton was pro gay marriage at the time....
     
  23. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #23
    Bans on equality don't work. Real families are hurt when they aren't granted legal protection when their kids are made to feel inferior, when SSI won't recognize survivor benefits, when a hospital won't let the family enter, etc.

    I think you'll find that many leaders are secretly championing some of these causes, but have to play very careful chess when they're in office lest they over reach and create backlash.
     
  24. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #24
    Equality makes sense in "the land of the free".

    How does someone's life partner not being able to receive benefits, and in many cases not even being able to visit a dying loved one in the hospital, make any sense?

    Of course, if your "sense" is driven from dogma and the parroting of celebrity shock jocks, then I guess treating people right doesn't make any sense. Not when there is money and power to be made off of ignorance, hatred, and lies.
     
  25. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #25
    I'm sorry, but what does that mean?

    What is the "Obama generation"?

    What are they doing that is bad for society, families and kids?

    What would you change in their "hard-wiring"?
     

Share This Page