"There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with
power to endanger the public liberty." - - - - John Adams

Thursday, June 16, 2011

JUDGES: Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional

So-called "Constitutional Conservatives" are very selective on which parts
of the Constitution they want to enforce at any given time. 

The ruling Monday was signed by 19 Federal Judges on the 24-member court in an unusually display of consensus

You either believe in the Constitution and the rule of law or you don't.  No more.  No less.  You cannot pick and choose which parts of the Constitution you want to enforce on any given day.

The 10th Amendment clearly limits the power of the Federal government and protects the rights of the States.  If an American citizen is legally married in a state then they should have the equal right to the use of and the protections of both Federal and State laws.

The nation's largest bankruptcy court has declared a controversial law banning federal recognition of gay marriages unconstitutional.

The ruling in U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California was the first to address the constitutionality of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act since U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. announced in February that the Obama administration considered the law discriminatory and would no longer defend it in court.

Both parties like to pick and choose which parts
of the Constitution that they will support on
any given day.

The decision issued by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Thomas Donovan was prompted by a joint bankruptcy filing by a Los Angeles gay couple legally married in 2008. The U.S. trustee assigned to vet the filing by Gene Balas and Carlos Morales had asked Donovan to dismiss the Chapter 13 petition because the 15-year-old law, known as DOMA, restricts federal benefits like joint filings to marriages between a man and a woman. Donovan ruled that the law violated the Constitution's equal protection guarantee.

Legal analysts said the ruling could have broad implications for gay spouses seeking equal treatment from federal agencies because it adds weight to two other federal court rulings in Massachusetts last year making their way through the appeals process.

The rulings last July by U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro dealt only with the law as it affects Massachusetts residents, and Monday's ruling by the Los Angeles bankruptcy court was likewise specific to the local case. But the rulings are seen as bellwethers for the possible extension of federal benefits to gay spouses in states where such marriages are legal, including the estimated 18,000 gay couples who wed in California in 2008.

For more on this story

No comments: