Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
Doma Again

Posted by labrea 7NYC (My Page) on
Wed, Jan 23, 13 at 9:31

I was attempting to ad this to the Inauguration thread. I will try it again as a post on it own.

Yesterday the GOP filed their brief. They already secretly raised to $3 Million funds that they originally promised wouldn't exceed $1 million (chicken feed in government).

The House Republican leadership Tuesday filed a brief in the Supreme Court urging the Supreme Court to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act as constitutional, arguing that the Obama administration "abdicated its duty to defend DOMA's constitutionality" in February 2011 and instead started "attacking" the law in court.
As to the law itself, the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group controlled 3-2 by Republicans in light of their House majority argued that the federal government had the authority to legislate in an attempt to ensure "national uniformity" regarding the provision of federal benefits. The House leaders argue that in addition to the federal reasons, the Congress could act for the same reasons many states have acted to ban same-sex couples from marrying. They wrote:

"There is a unique relationship between marriage and procreation that stems from marriage's origins as a means to address the tendency of opposite-sex relationships to produce unintended and unplanned offspring. There is nothing irrational about declining to extend marriage to same-sex relationships that, whatever their other similarities to opposite-sex relationships, simply do not share that same tendency. Congress likewise could rationally decide to foster relationships in which children are raised by both of their biological parents."

"The U.S. Department of Justice has not defended the 1996 law since February 2011, when it decided that it believed that Section 3 of DOMA, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage, was unconstitutional."
It also seems like a good number of federal courts have also declared provisions/sections of DOMA to be unconstitutional.

One of the primary cases to be heard is a tax case pure and simple!

A rather pathetic approach to the subject since most of the cases are financial & have to do with spousal benefits or inheritance.
Most US marriage laws are concerned with property & inheritance.

"It’s bad enough that Speaker Boehner and House Republicans are wasting taxpayer dollars to defend the indefensible Defense of Marriage Act " and losing in every case. Now, they have reached a new low " signing a secret contract to spend more public money on their legal boondoggle without informing Democrats. Their actions are simply unconscionable; their decisions are utterly irresponsible.”

At least in the past the swine tried claiming activists Judges were the problem
Nearly all the Federal Judges that Struck down DOMA have been BUSH REGAN & NIXON appointees!

W]e conclude that review of Section 3 of DOMA requires heightened scrutiny. The Supreme Court uses certain factors to decide whether a new classification qualifies as a quasi-suspect class. They include: A) whether the class has been historically “subjected to discrimination,”; B) whether the class has a defining characteristic that “frequently bears [a] relation to ability to perform or contribute to society,” C) whether the class exhibits “obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics that define them as a discrete group;” and D) whether the class is “a minority or politically powerless.” Immutability and lack of political power are not strictly necessary factors to identify a suspect class. Nevertheless, immutability and political power are indicative, and we consider them here. In this case, all four factors justify heightened scrutiny: A) homosexuals as a group have historically endured persecution and discrimination; B) homosexuality has no relation to aptitude or ability to contribute to society; C) homosexuals are a discernible group with non-obvious distinguishing characteristics, especially in the subset of those who enter same-sex marriages; and D) the class remains a politically weakened minority.
This is a really big deal. Jacobs is not simply saying that DOMA imposes unique and unconstitutional burdens on gay couples, he is saying that any attempt by government to discriminate against gay people must have an “exceedingly persuasive” justification. This is the same very skeptical standard afforded to laws that discriminate against women. If Jacobs’ reasoning is adopted by the Supreme Court, it will be a sweeping victory for gay rights.

Jacobs is a HW Bush appointee! He once gave a speech to the Federalist society decrying the "anti social effects" of attorneys providing free legal services to the less foryunate.


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: Doma Again

The party of no and exclusion at it again.

Just goes to show you --- small government and fiscally responsible only when it suits them.

Shameful and disgusting.


 o
RE: Doma Again

The party of no and exclusion at it again.

They have to satisfy the fundamentalist base. If they continue to alienate independent voters, more power to the GOP fanatics as they make themselves irrelevant.

"The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice."


 o
RE: Doma Again

I agree, nancy. The crazier they look, the better for this country. They will continue to self implode and I for one will enjoy watching.

Here's what I don't understand -- all the conservatives on this board yelling and screaming about the government wasting money never say a word about this. A complete and total waste of tax payer money to defend something that is indefensible. Something that takes away people's rights. And I can only assume by their repeated silence everytime Joe posts this information, that they support this. Fiscally responsible only when it suits their purpose. In other words, hypocrite.


 o
RE: Doma Again

That is why I post the financial posts you know the ho hums or the true fiscal responsibility posts like to big to monitor rather than the Monty games the baby wipes of the GOP play at!
Generally speaking in March whe oral arguments begin the turds on tv will inform the witless cyphers what to say!


 o
RE: Doma Again

They epitomize the definition of insanity.


 o
RE: Doma Again

Crickets again.

Figures.


 o
RE: Doma Again

I like crickets! I used to feed them to a baby robin that I cared for ! It's favorites blueberries & crickets!
I truly am surprised though as Eddie Windsor case is a straightforward tax & inheritance case! You know the stuff the party of small supporters mutter about!

This post was edited by labrea on Wed, Jan 23, 13 at 16:16


 o
RE: Doma Again

We had Robins nesting in our mailbox (a classic) for years. Robin-egg-blue--gorgeous colour...

This part has me youknowhat:

"It's bad enough that Speaker Boehner and House Republicans are wasting taxpayer dollars to defend the indefensible Defense of Marriage Act - and losing in every case. Now, they have reached a new low - signing a secret contract to spend more public money on their legal boondoggle without informing Democrats.

And they have the nerve, THE NERVE, to whine about "Obama not reaching across the aisle"?


 o
RE: Doma Again

Well you know Maddie, GOP motto is not "what's good for the goose is good for the gander".

Rather it's all about me, myself and I. Reminds me of when my grown kids where little and the world revolved around them.

The older they got the more they learned that they where not the only ones in the world and not everything revolved around them.

Time for the GOP to grow up and realize the same thing.

and whining doesn't get one anywhere. Kids learn that very quickly, time for the GOP to learn that as well.


 o
RE: Doma Again

I saw that that Kentucky clown with the tribble on his head Rad Paul suggested that Obama's marriage equality policy "could'n't get any gayer". (This is juvenile schoolyard crap about what he's good for) yet around the same time he said the party needed to adapt & evolve (into what pray tell) with a turd like this you don't need much to alienate!
A pretend Libertarian!
Still got about a month before the oral arguments are herd then we'll hear the voice of the tighty rightees aka cons!


 o
RE: Doma Again

Still got about a month before the oral arguments

We're waiting to see if the 9th Circuit decision on Prop 8 will be upheld.


 o
RE: Doma Again

or heard even?


 o
RE: Doma Again

According to the LAT it will be: Supreme Court to rule on California's Prop. 8 ban on gay marriage

The Supreme Court announced Friday it will rule for the first time on same-sex marriage by deciding the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8, the voter initiative that limited marriage to a man and a woman...

The California case raises the broad question of whether gays and lesbians have an equal right to marry.

If the justices had turned down the appeal from the defenders of Prop. 8, it would have allowed gay marriages to resume in California, but without setting a national precedent.

Now, the high court has agreed to decide whether a state's ban on same-sex marriages violates the U.S. Constitution. The court's intervention came just one month after voters in three states -- Maine, Maryland and Washington -- approved gay marriages. This brought the total to nine states having legalized same-sex marriages.

But the justices also left themselves a way out. They said they would consider whether the defenders of Prop. 8 had legal standing to bring their appeal.

The justices made the announcement after meeting behind closed doors. They did not say which justices voted to hear the appeals.

Last year, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Prop. 8, but it did so on a narrow basis. Judge Stephen Reinhardt reasoned that the voter initiative was unconstitutional because it took away from gays and lesbians a right to marry that they had won before the state Supreme Court.

The justices now will have at least three options before them: They could reverse the 9th Circuit and uphold Prop. 8, thereby making it clear that the definition of marriage will be left to the discretion of each state and its voters.

They could rule broadly that denying gays and lesbians the fundamental right to marry violates the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection of the laws. Such a decision would open the door to gay marriages nationwide.

Or as a third option, they could follow the approach set by the 9th Circuit and strike down Prop. 8 in a way that limits the ruling to California only.

I have the feeling that the third option will prevail. No logical reason, just a gut reaction. Good for California, but as good as it could be for the rest of the U.S.


 o
RE: Doma Again

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Wed, Jan 23, 13 at 20:13

Something that takes away people's rights

....denying people their rights in this country has historical precedence.


 o
RE: Doma Again

Well something that creates a class & then holds that class to an extra standard which is what several of the Judges have already seen & ruled on .
Ruth Ginsburg in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez spoke of Status. It's the first time The Top Court of the land spoke of a status rather than a behavior as a defining factor for the gay community. All previous cases spoke to sexual behavior. This was important for the proposition 8 case and less important to the Eddie Windsor case.


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Please review our Rules of Play before posting.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here