Courtroom Coverage: DOMA Under Scrutiny in Federal Appeal

[William769]

Source: The Advocate

BOSTON — A three-judge panel of a federal appeals court heard arguments over the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act in Boston on Wednesday, marking a first in the mounting legal challenges against the 1996 law.

Three judges from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit — Chief Judge Sandra L. Lynch, Judge Juan R. Torruella, and Judge Michael Boudin — listened and asked questions as attorneys for the state of Massachusetts and a group of seven legally married same-sex couples and three widowers urged the panel to uphold two decisions from July 2010 that found a key provision of DOMA unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Joseph L. Tauro ruled in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management that Section 3 of DOMA, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, violates the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Judge Tauro, a Nixon appointee, also ruled in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services that the section violates the Tenth Amendment and the Spending Clause.

Paul Clement, a former solicitor general under President George W. Bush who argued against the Obama health care law before the Supreme Court last week, represented the House of Representatives in defending DOMA. House Republican leadership intervened via the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group last year after the Justice Department, in a reversal of its position, announced that it had found DOMA unconstitutional and would no longer defend the law in court.



Read more: http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2012/04/04/DOMA_Under_Scrutiny_in_Federal_Appeals_Court/

---

Marriage equality for all is within our grasps.

[Ruby the Liberal]

1. I thought the district appeal was over and on appeal

to SCOTUS. Ugh. I need to pay closer attention.

Heres hoping for a swift verdict and escalation to the docket of the main show.



While I am on this, can we get a watch list? Prop H8 in CA, the 5 couple Immigration/marriage suit and the MA suit by my count - any others headed to Fed court?

[William769]

2. I don't believe the Supreme court will hear any of these cases

at least until they can figure out how to do it & rule without out sounding like bigots or they figure out how to say the U.S. Constitution does not apply to "some" U.S. Citizens.

I don't think some on that court are willing to take that chance anytime soon.

[Ruby the Liberal]

3. Seriously?

Lord knows you are a LOT more intimately familiar with the bullshit that has gone down with these suits over the years, but do you honestly think that NONE of the cases challenging DOMA will be heard by SCOTUS?

For the love of all that is holy - it is a constitutional rights issue.

If they can interject on Gore v Bush and Citizens United v FEC, can't they be bothered to hear a DOMA challenge of some flavor?

[William769]

4. Nope, nada, zip, zilch, nein.

Yes it's a constitutional rights issue, one that they would rather die than say we should have a right to. I think they will deny to hear all these cases at the Supreme court & let the appeals court rulings stand (in the slim hope of in the future of bringing the hammer down on them).

Now I could be totally wrong, but thats how I see it.

[Ruby the Liberal]

5. Well then we fight and we don't stop fighting.

Though I can't imagine for the life of me how they can decline to hear a constitutional challenge of this nature - from whichever angle hits first.

They took the time to hear Anna Nicole Smiths DIVORCE case for shit sake.

[William769]

6. Ok now your going on ignore.

Just kidding.

I can't prove any of it. Just giving my humble opinion.

[Ruby the Liberal]

7. Can someone tell me what ignored just said?

Not that I am curious or anything.