Defense Of Marriage Act Ruled Unconstitutional By Second Federal Judge

OAKLAND, Calif. -- A second federal judge in California has struck down a law denying benefits to partners in a gay marriage.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken says the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act violated constitutional standards when it denied federal benefits to same-sex spouses married under California law and barred domestic partners of state workers from long-term health coverage.

Wilken says both laws were based on what she calls "moral condemnation" of same-sex couples.

A San Francisco judge also declared the federal law unconstitutional in February in a separate case. That ruling is under appeal and will go before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in September.

Also on HuffPost:

Comments

[bluebellmom]

09:47 PM on 06/10/2012

And so now we have people marrying themselves, marrying buildings, marrying animals, and many who have no need to marry at all because as a society we can live together without marriage, and have children without marriage. In addition marriage means so little when over half decide to break the covenant/contract anyway. History shows this is not wise. We will probably look back and think we made a huge mistake with devastating social results.

[Leboazz]

07:58 PM on 06/04/2012

DOMA is not unconstitutional per se. The federal government has a right to define marriage as it wants. It is its application that is unconstitutional. The federal government is recognizing the marriage licenses of opposite-sex couples married in same-sex marriage states such as Massachusetts, but is not recognizing the exact same licenses of those who are same-sex couples. This is clearly discriminatory.

To remedy the situation, the federal government must neither recognize the marriage licenses of opposite-sex couples nor same-sex couples married under the laws of same-sex marriage states, as these licenses define marriage differently from federal standards.

[dcmatern]

12:32 AM on 06/01/2012

Just get rid of "Civil Unions," "Domestic Partnerships," etc. and call it "Marriage" already.

The Supreme Court decided in Brown v. Board of Education that even if everything is equal in all regards, calling something different or separating it somehow is unconstitutional; because, one group will fell emotionally inferior to the other. So, if you don't like gays being married, that just sucks for you.

Also, marriage is not an agreement with God - I'm atheist and I was married to my wife.

Furthermore, marriage is not about reproduction - otherwise, infertile women and men wouldn't be allowed to be married.

Marriage is purely about showing someone else that you are committed to them in some way or form.

[pugcharlie]

10:34 AM on 05/31/2012

FINALLY...justice prevails. Move Marriage Equality to Federal Law.

[talkstocoyotes]

09:51 AM on 05/31/2012

Many civil rights opponents try to demonize gays by insisting that if everyone was gay (they don't say how that would happen), the human species would die out. One poster here asserted that civilization would collapse if gays were 93% of the population.

Okay, in the event of some weird environmental glitch that resulted in 93% of all babies growing up to be gay, here's what would most likely happen:

Families would adapt. As the rising percentage of same-sex households with children indicates, being gay doesn't mean you're not interested in raising children and it certainly doesn't mean you're sterile. At present, same-sex couples using surrogates and/or sperm donors do so in a clinical setting but that isn't strictly necessary. If the majority of the population were gay, it's likely that extended families would form around pairs of couples, one female and one male couple. Life would go on, except that unintended pregnancies would be rare.

[Leboazz]

09:19 PM on 05/28/2012

When gays argue for “marriage equality”, the basis of their claim is a moral one: that same-sex couples are MORALLY equal to opposite-sex couples, that gay love is just as good as straight love, and therefore, these should have all the rights and privileges of the latter. While that is open to debate, it is not on that basis that marriage is established.

Marriage is established on the basis of the practical EFFECT that opposite-sex couples have on society, which is procreation, and not on the moral status of the opposite-sex relationship. It is apparent to all that same-sex couples have no similar practical effect. In terms of any legitimate or important governmental interest, same-sex couples are equivalent to good friends who share lodgings and expenses. And that’s all.

Gays want to change the basis of marriage from a purely pragmatic one to a MORAL one. The foolishness of that, however, is that the state will then be arbitrating morality, making moral distinctions among relationships and discriminating on that basis? Perhaps one might see the many pitfalls and disadvantages to this approach.

It would be best to apply only the pragmatic standard and leave moralizing to the theologians and the philosophers.

[Tribalenvy]

11:50 PM on 05/28/2012

No, marriage wasn't established on the basis of procreation. That has been shot down in court. The real pragmatic reason for marriage was protection of property and assets.

It isn't simply a moral issue, but a legal and Constitutional one. Gay people pay taxes and are legal in every way in this country. Gay people have children too, BTW. Often times they adopt children discarded or abused by their actual parents. Marriage isn't just a moral commitment, but a set of legal protections as well.

You are operating on completely false notions here. It isn't simply a moral issue alone. Marriage was not established for the purpose of procreation, and it surely isn't a necessary component. This argument has been used in Courts and let me tell you, it's been shot down rather easily every single time.

[Leboazz]

04:31 AM on 05/29/2012

You’re right! It isn’t a moral issue, but as I pointed out, gays want to make the basis of marriage a moral one and not keep it a practical one as it is currently.

Marriage was established because of custom and tradition, but this tradition arose out of the practical necessity for socially responsible and orderly procreation.

There is really no constitutional issue at the heart of marriage. It is simply one of convenience and practical effect – opposite-sex couples produce children – and marriage laws seek to manage the consequences of this.

[Laxsmi de Potrero]

12:30 AM on 05/29/2012

your procreation argument is usually the first one that judges dismiss. there are many heterosexual married couples who cannot have children.

and please don't tell anyone else what the basis of their argument might be. you may think you know it all, but you don't.

[Leboazz]

04:33 AM on 05/29/2012

The right to marriage is extended to the CLASS of opposite-sex couples, not particular opposite-sex couples. Members of that class who choose to not have children or who are unable to have children are still, nonetheless, members of that class. That is why all opposite-sex couples have a right to marry, regardless of any intentions or ability to have children.

[davesf]

02:33 PM on 05/28/2012

Yup!

[American in Taipei]

04:52 AM on 05/28/2012

This title is inaccurate. Judge Tauro in the District of Massachusetts ruled that DOMA was unconstitutional in 2010. That makes at least 3 federal judges.

[WheelsOnFire]

12:26 PM on 05/28/2012

Thanks for noting that.

Yes, there are now 3 federal judges who have found DOMA to be unconstitutional -- and Judge Tauro found so on two counts.

Moreover, there isn't a single judge that has upheld DOMA.

DOMA is on the ropes and its days are numbered.

[bannorhill]

11:14 PM on 05/28/2012

You are wrong about upholding DOMA.

The 9th Curcuit upheld DOMA in the Case of In re Kandu. It states:

"The Court concludes that DOMA does not violate the principles of comity, or the Fourth, Fifth, or Tenth Amendments to the US Constitution."

Strange how Judge Walker ignored that prior ruling.

[Dean Arthurson]

02:54 AM on 05/28/2012

The government shouldn't license marriage for anyone.

Marriage should be licensed.

[raynevandunem]

12:06 PM on 05/28/2012

licensed by whom?

[AlfredE69]

09:34 PM on 05/28/2012

James Bond: Licensed to Marriage.

[cris11r]

11:26 PM on 05/28/2012

If the government does not license marriage- marriage will have no legality. It would be a useless piece of paper with no seal and no record.

[Dean Arthurson]

12:31 AM on 05/29/2012

Private contracts DO have legal validity, and the terms are set by the persons signing the contracts, not by the government. There need to be private marriage contracts like that - with the terms set by the signers - instead of government-issued licenses that he government sets the terms of.

[cris11r]

02:01 AM on 05/29/2012

What kind of private contract are you talking about? Any issued license (Marriage, Drivers License, Fishing, etc) has to be documented and recorded to be legal. If you are creating a contract among individuals privately- you are in agreement together and the law (Police) may or may not be involved if one or both parties default, but there is NO RECORD of the contract by the Laws of our Government, which uphold the laws enstated many years ago by our fore-fathers, and rightfully so. You cannot create a contract that will allow you to do something that you need a Government license to do! Can you immagine that? Everyone would come up with many ideas to create their own rules/licenses! Probably none being lawful! You can't do that. You are free to create your own marriage "agreement" without government involvement, but it will not be upheld in a court of law because it is not a legal marriage.

[Dan Langdon]

06:36 PM on 05/27/2012

DOMA is unconstitutional because it violates Article 4 section 1 of the US constitution. This is know as the full faith and credit clause.

Article 4.

Section 1
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records,
and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general
Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be
proved, and the Effect thereof.

[TrekBear]

09:22 PM on 05/27/2012

Technically, yes, but, as I recall, Congress specifically exempted this law from that Article.

Since I'm no lawyer, I can't speak as to whether that was valid or legitimate. I have learned since that all Acts of Congress are presumed to be Constitutional unless litigation persuades judges up to SCOTUS that the Act isn't.

[joemondo]

10:26 PM on 05/27/2012

Congress can't exempt anything from the Constitution.

[WheelsOnFire]

12:28 PM on 05/28/2012

No, Congress wrote a law in contradiction of the Constitution.

As joemondo properly observed, Congress cannot exempt anything from the Constitution.

Only an amendment to the Constitution can exempt something from the Constitution. And that takes years.

[bannorhill]

12:39 AM on 05/28/2012

"And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

That is what congress has done in passing DOMA.

[MathIsTruth]

11:39 AM on 05/28/2012

Clearly, that sentence does not overturn the previous sentence.

It's not like nobody bothered to proofread the Constitution before it was ratified.

[Ian Llangan]

02:03 PM on 05/27/2012

Two observations:

1) Each time someone makes an outrageously bigoted "drive-by" statement in these discussion boards (and others on equal marriage) I see many reasonable, educated and intelligent, articulate people rush in to ask questions, and try to engage that person in spirited, lively and civil debate, but you will note that the original poster does not often return, usually preferring to simply launch another "missile" in their next posting. I would suggest in future simply hitting the "Flag As Abusive" button, as all efforts at reasoning with such people are utterly futile. Or simply let their comment stand, ignored, unanswered, and allow other readers to observe its nature and move on.

2) The Republi-christo-taliban-fundy-bagger reaction to all news of advances in civil rights for LGBTQ persons reminds me of nothing so much as a slow-motion version of that scene in the Wizard of Oz where that witch finally gets drenched by a bucket of water, and begins to melt away, but I am not sure why...

[Utopian Sky]

02:47 PM on 05/27/2012

I love the fact that in a LGBT rights post you made a Wizard of Oz reference. :)
Yeah Friends of Dorothy! :)

[werewolf90210]

03:08 PM on 05/27/2012

In response to 2).

It's because the whole thing is surreal. Republicans are absolutely surreal in so many ways.

[American in Taipei]

04:57 AM on 05/28/2012

Government small enough to fit in gay bedrooms and women's uteruses/i!

[lewiscave]

01:42 PM on 05/27/2012

Big deal, It's the 9th court. Far far far left.

[joemondo]

02:20 PM on 05/27/2012

The 9th is a federal Circuit Court in good standing, despite the deceptive smears from rightwingers.

[Utopian Sky]

02:49 PM on 05/27/2012

That means most of the country is far far far left of you.
How does it feel standing way out there, all alone in the cold, with no one but Rick Santorum and the Bachmanns to keep you company?

[TotalTranquility]

05:16 PM on 05/27/2012

Maybe Rick or Marcus can keep lewiscave warm.

[jondekonkeroo]

12:42 PM on 05/27/2012

According to polls released today a majority of americans now approve of ss marriage. That reflects about a thirteen percent change up from march in the same poll. also afro american approval has jumped about thirty point since the pres made his announcement.

It seems to me that once they gave it some consideration, most people didn't really object to ss marriage as much as they thought they did

[larryjensen554]

02:37 AM on 05/28/2012

we the majority object...

[jondekonkeroo]

03:08 AM on 05/28/2012

saying you're the majority is a far cry from beiing the majority. you're the codependents and if you were a majority this would still be the fourth century.

[Larry Waters]

04:53 AM on 05/28/2012

Yeah, well the majority objected to the abolition of slavery too at one time.

[recovergirl]

05:23 PM on 05/30/2012

that is not true. There are countless unheard voices that have not gotten involved in this debate.

[Intelligenti Pauca]

12:02 PM on 05/27/2012

In US Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Kennedy's opinion grounded the right of consenting adults to have sex on how intimate and personal the conduct was to those involved, not on the conduct being traditionally protected by society (as in Bowers), procreative (as in Eisenstadt and Roe), or conducted by married people (as in Griswold).

In other words - It's None Of Your D**n Business.

In the August 4, 2010 federal district court decision in Perry v. Brown (formerly Perry v. Schwarzenegger), which overturned California's Proposition 8, Judge Vaughn Walker cited Loving v. Virginia to conclude that "the [constitutional] right to marry protects an individual's choice of marital partner regardless of gender".

I'm a straight man who's been happily married for 13 years. Homosexuality in no way negatively affects my marriage or my life. I've counted many homosexuals as my friends over the years. It is unconscionable that in 2012 people are still trying to deny homosexuals the rights they've been guaranteed under the Constitution based on some antiquated, superstitious religious dogma.

[Intelligenti Pauca]

12:00 PM on 05/27/2012

Why do people insist on trying to perpetuate this ignorant "unnatural" meme?

Scientific research has already proven that homosexual behavior, not necessarily sex, has been observed in close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them.

If homosexuality is, as people like to keep saying, "unnatural", then by its very definition it wouldn't occur in Nature. And yet it does, hundreds of times over, in hundreds of different species. That is a known fact, that's not supposition or opinion. It has been scientifically proven.

Now, continuing down this logical path, and incorporating Christian beliefs into it; since "God" gave Man "free will", but not animals, then the FACT that homosexuality occurs numerous times in Nature, proves that the statement "homosexuality is unnatural", is not only false, but it also directly contradicts the idea that homosexuality is somehow a "choice".

[Paula Merenz]

12:51 PM on 05/27/2012

Are you using animals behavior to argue for SSM? Not a good argument IMO.

That is an odd comparison. Especially when so many deny that marrying animals is not something to be concerned about in the future.

Time tempers all we find shocking, but that doesn't make the shocking right.

[Intelligenti Pauca]

01:17 PM on 05/27/2012

Try improving your reading & comprehension skills & then read the post again.

[jresch20]

01:23 PM on 05/27/2012

He is not talking about man marying animals. He is saying that homosexuality also occurs in animals.
Man cannot marry their dog since there has to be consent. And I have yet to see a dog that can talk and give consent.

[NellWebbish]

01:56 PM on 05/27/2012

The "unnatural" argument doesn't make any sense on any level.

Sexual attraction is controlled by biology and shows a wide range of expression. Attraction to the same gender has been part of the human population throughout human history and it seems to occur at pretty much the same frequency. It's as natural as left-handedness and having red hair.

"unnatural" is just code for "me and my god think it's icky"