U.S. Judge Finds Defense of Marriage Act Invalid

[Bei1052]

Link

July 8 (Bloomberg) -- A U.S. judge declared that the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines the institution as being between a man and a woman, is unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Joseph L. Tauro in Boston today decided that Congress exceeded its authority in legislating the issue and that the measure infringed states' rights to regulate marriage.

Tauro said he agreed with Massachusetts in its lawsuit filed last year against the federal government that the law forced the commonwealth "to engage in invidious discrimination against its own citizens in order to receive and retain federal funds." The judge issued a parallel ruling in a separate case filed by seven same-sex couples and three survivors of same-sex partners, all of whom were married in Massachusetts.

The marriage-defining act, popularly known as DoMA, was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996. As of 2003, it affected 1,138 federal programs in which marital status was a factor in eligibility for benefits, the judge said, citing a 2004 report by the federal government.

Jill Butterworth, a spokeswoman for Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, said she couldn't immediately comment on today's decision. Coakley will hold a press conference later today, Butterworth said.

Tracy Schmaler, a U.S. Justice Department spokeswoman, said in an e-mail that officials are reviewing the decision.

The state's case is Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, 09-cv-11156, and the couples' case is Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, 09-cv-10309, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts (Boston).

I, honestly, couldn't care less about whether or not gay marriage is legal or not, but I'm actually curious as the implications of this, more specifically the bolded. I wonder how far a case challenging the (not-so-recently) passed health care bill would go based on the "10th amendment/Congress overstepping it's boundaries" argument.

 

[JollyRoger]

This is what happens when you get a liberal President appointing judges.

 

[Bei1052]

This is what happens when you get a liberal President appointing judges.

I'm guessing that was a tongue-in-cheek comment, right?

 

[JollyRoger]

I wonder how far a case challenging the (not-so-recently) passed health care bill would go based on the "10th amendment/Congress overstepping it's boundaries" argument.

The Federal Government has been regulating aspects of healthcare since the Lighthouse Act of 1789.

 

[Bei1052]

The Federal Government has been regulating aspects of healthcare since the Lighthouse Act of 1789.

The longer the government does something, the more correct it becomes?

 

[JollyRoger]

If it has been done since the framing, with geat overlap between the Constitutional Convention and 1st Congress, well yes.

 

[emzie]

Incoming "judicial activism" complaints from the right.

 

[Cutlass]

These days it's always an unexpected event when a judge gives a damn about the Constitution.

 

[Bei1052]

If it since the framing, with geat overlap between the Constitutional Convention and 1st Congress, well yes.

Interesting. So does that mean that DOMA is more correct today then it was yesterday, or is that logic only selectively applied?

 

[JollyRoger]

DOMA wasn't passed anywhere near 1789.

 

[Bei1052]

DOMA wasn't passed anywhere near 1789.

No. Just 1996. That's still fourteen years, and if the longer something is on the books, and the more credence it has, then DOMA should be more correct today then it was yesterday or the day before that or the day before that.

 

[emzie]

No. Just 1996. That's still fourteen years, and if the longer something is on the books, and the more credence it has, then DOMA should be more correct today then it was yesterday or the day before that or the day before that.

Longevity was never his point. I have no idea what the act he referenced is about, but it was passed by a government made up by the founding fathers, so it's rather hard to argue it was against the intent of the constitution.

 

[JollyRoger]

No. Just 1996. That's still fourteen years, and if the longer something is on the books, and the more credence it has, then DOMA should be more correct today then it was yesterday or the day before that or the day before that.

I'm not making a length-of-time-on-the-books argument, I'm making an on-the-books-contemporary-with-the-framing argument.

 

[Bei1052]

Longevity was never his point. I have no idea what the act he referenced is about, but it was passed by a government made up by the founding fathers, so it's rather hard to argue it was against the intent of the constitution.

I don't think that's his argument, because JR hates arguing what the Founder's intent was. At least, that's always the impression he's given

I'm not making a length-of-time-on-the-books argument, I'm making an on-the-books-contemporary-with-the-framing argument.

It's still the same thing, only you're trying to rationalize one because it was done "when the Founders" were around. If DOMA were passed in 1789 and was still around today, I highly doubt you'd be defending it based on the "on-the-books-contemporary-with-the-framing" argument.

 

[JollyRoger]

I don't think that's his argument, because JR hates arguing what the Founder's intent was. At least, that's always the impression he's given



It's still the same thing, only you're trying to rationalize one because it was done "when the Founders" were around. If DOMA were passed in 1789 and was still around today, I highly doubt you'd be defending it based on the "on-the-books-contemporary-with-the-framing" argument.

It's not the same thing at all. And yes, if DOMA was passed by the 1st Congress, I would give that passage great weight - more than you give the Lighthouse Act and its federal funding of healthcare.

 

[emzie]

I don't think that's his argument, because JR hates arguing what the Founder's intent was. At least, that's always the impression he's given

Considering he's an NRA member and an ACLU supporter, I dare say you're incorrect.

 

[7ronin]

Supreme Court here we come, unless of course if the Obama Justice Department decides not to appeal.

 

[emzie]

Supreme Court here we come, unless of course if the Obama Justice Department decides not to appeal.

Aren't they required to appeal?

 

[Bei1052]

It's not the same thing at all.

For argument's sake, we'll just say it's not the same thing (though it really is).

And yes, if DOMA was passed by the 1st Congress, I would give that passage great weight...

Notice I didn't say "give great weight". I said you wouldn't be defending it, and I can say that with a great deal of certainty, as laws aren't defended based on when they're based passed or who passed them.

more than you give the Lighthouse Act and its federal funding of healthcare.

Me, not knowing what the Lighthouse Act of 1789 was, had to go look it up. I have to say, I have no idea what you're on about, so you're going to have to explain it to me.

Considering he's an NRA member and an ACLU supporter, I dare say you're incorrect.

Neither of which have any bearing on what I said. I can (not easily) pull up past conversations in which he denounces arguing the Founder's intent when deciding case law.

 

[JollyRoger]

Me, not knowing what the Lighthouse Act of 1789 was, had to go look it up. I have to say, I have no idea what you're on about, so you're going to have to explain it to me.

On April 21, the House returned to the issue of tonnage, the first
point of discussion (in the order of Madison’s resolution) being how much
American vessels should be charged. Massachusetts’ Benjamin Goodhue
(whose state was a major center of the American shipping industry) opened
the debate by questioning why Congress should impose any tonnage on
American vessels at all.34 The response provided by Pennsylvania’s
Thomas Fitzsimons gives us the first mention of lighthouses by the First
Congress: Why was tonnage needed? In order to raise sufficient revenue
for “lighthouses, and regulation of places that are incident to them.”35
Madison agreed, and chimed in with the suggestion that there were also
other “establishments incident to commerce” for which “some small
provision of this kind was necessary”—such as hospitals for disabled
seamen.

http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1477&context=expresso

In the interest of full disclosure, such hospital funding didn't formally make it into law until the 5th Congress and the funding mandate by Congress for these hospitals was via deductions from seaman pay rather than tonnage revenue, but that just goes to show how pervasive federal regulation had become very early in our country's history - federally mandated deductions from pay to fund healthcare. Took a couple of centuries and change to get around to DOMA.