Uh oh. DOMA is on the docket now.

[UtahDan]

Three Judge panel in the First Circuit, including two Republican appointees, declares DOMA unconstitutional. Should be interesting to read the opinion.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...nal/?mobile=nc

[UtahDan]

Here is a WSJ blog with a bunch of excerpts from the opinion:

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/05/31/...ots-down-doma/

[UtahDan]

The evidence as to child rearing by same-sex couples is the subject of controversy, but we need not enter the debate. Whether or not children raised by opposite-sex marriages are on average better served, DOMA cannot preclude same-sex couples in Massachusetts from adopting children or prevent a woman partner from giving birth to a child to be raised by both partners.

Although the House Report is filled with encomia to heterosexual marriage, DOMA does not increase benefits to opposite-sex couples–whose marriages may in any event be childless, unstable or both–or explain how denying benefits to same-sex couples will reinforce heterosexual marriage. Certainly, the denial will not affect the gender choices of those seeking marriage. This is not merely a matter of poor fit of remedy to perceived problem but a lack of any demonstrated connection between DOMA’s treatment of same-sex couples and its asserted goal of strengthening the bonds and benefits to society of heterosexual marriage.

This is the problem with so many of the justifications for DOMA, anti-gay marriages amendments, etc. is that they purport to stop things that are going to happen no matter what.

[UtahDan]

[M]any Americans believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and most Americans live in states where that is the law today. One virtue of federalism is that it permits this diversity of governance based on local choice, but this applies as well to the states that have chosen to legalize same-sex marriage. Under current Supreme Court authority, Congress’ denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married in Massachusetts has not been adequately supported by any permissible federal interest.

To be clear, the part being struck down is the part that denies federal benefits that heterosexual married couples get to gay married couples. The court did not consider whether other the part allowing states not to recognize gay marriages entered into elsewhere.

[All-American]

And 2nd Circuit Court stikes it down.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/18/justic...html?hpt=hp_t1

[TripletDaddy]

And 2nd Circuit Court stikes it down.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/18/justic...html?hpt=hp_t1

Uh oh!

[Moliere]

And 2nd Circuit Court stikes it down.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/18/justic...html?hpt=hp_t1

My marriage doesn't feel as strong today as it did yesterday