1st Circuit Court of Appeals overturns DOMA provisions

[Ifreann]

Yes on all counts. Good news indeed.

You are basically saying that the degradation of the moral center of America is good....

I'm quite aware of what I said. If the moral centre of America would oppress gays then hells yeah degrade it. Tie it up in the sex dungeon and degrade the shit out of it.

[Ifreann]

You are basically saying that the degradation of the moral center of America is good....

Our moral center should be inclusive and secular to the extent it is enforced by law.

It being a nougat centre is also acceptable.

[Buffett and Colbert]

You are basically saying that the degradation of the moral center of America is good....

Our moral center should be inclusive and secular to the extent it is enforced by law.

Would you like some salt for that moral degradation? An extra helping of gay agenda? How about a side of destruction of family?

[Coccygia]

All this does is give the Gang of Five on the Supreme Court an opportunity to uphold DOMUS, and perhaps rule that homosexuals are not human, unlike corporations.

[Neo Art]

I have a couple of questions for you, Neo (if you don't mind).

I don't remember if it was you or TCT who said that you/he didn't believe that the portion of DOMA that says that no state is required to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause, but what would the argument there?

I don't recall ever particularly weighing in on the subject on NSG before. My own belief is that Section 2 (the part you're refering to) probably is unconstitutionally violating the Full Faith and Credit clause..but that's another story.

What i Have said, I believe, is that I find Section 2 to be legally insignificant. Meaning, that either it violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and in which case it's impermissable, or it doesn't, it which case it doesn't do anything. All Section 2 does is say states don't have to recognize same sex marriages performed in other states. If that's unconstitutional, and I believe it is, then it's unconstitutional.

If it's NOT unconstitutional, than it's merely a legal truism. If states do not have to recognize as valid same sex marriages performed in another state, then they don't, DOMA notwithstanding.

So it's either illegal, or pointless.

Also, Puerto Rico belongs to the 1st Circuit. Does it apply in the same way as it would to any other state in the Circuit, to your knowledge?

Yes, but Puerto Rico doesn't have same sex marriage, so it's slightly moot.

[Nidaria]

You are basically saying that the degradation of the moral center of America is good....

Your cruelty towards people who have done nothing to you and nothing to deserve such treatment is not "the moral center" but quite the opposite.

"Cruelty?" Contrary to liberal belief, we are not Big Brothers who use torture on everyone who disagrees with us. They are guilty, they are guilty of sexual perversion. Sexual preference is their choice, and they simply have to face the consequences of that choice.

[Hammurab]

Our moral center should be inclusive and secular to the extent it is enforced by law.

Would you like some salt for that moral degradation? An extra helping of gay agenda? How about a side of destruction of family?

I'll be right with you.

I'm giving Tim Gunn a rusty trombone, so I have to type with one hand.

[Hammurab]

All this does is give the Gang of Five on the Supreme Court an opportunity to uphold DOMUS, and perhaps rule that homosexuals are not human, unlike corporations.

Well, if its a contest, corporations have fucked more people in the ass than any gay guy I know.

[Nidaria]

You are basically saying that the degradation of the moral center of America is good....

I'm quite aware of what I said. If the moral centre of America would oppress gays then hells yeah degrade it. Tie it up in the sex dungeon and degrade the shit out of it.

We would no longer be civilized. Abandoning the morals which have prevented Western civilization from killing itself off is the most idiotic thing one can do.

[Neo Art]

Would you like some salt for that moral degradation? An extra helping of gay agenda? How about a side of destruction of family?

I'll be right with you.

I'm giving Tim Gunn a rusty trombone, so I have to type with one hand.

Make it work.

[Ifreann]

Your cruelty towards people who have done nothing to you and nothing to deserve such treatment is not "the moral center" but quite the opposite.

"Cruelty?" Contrary to liberal belief, we are not Big Brothers who use torture on everyone who disagrees with us. They are guilty, they are guilty of sexual perversion. Sexual preference is their choice, and they simply have to face the consequences of that choice.

Sore asses?

[Hammurab]

I'll be right with you.

I'm giving Tim Gunn a rusty trombone, so I have to type with one hand.

Make it work.

Ehkgay, uh mull.

[Buffett and Colbert]

I have a couple of questions for you, Neo (if you don't mind).

I don't remember if it was you or TCT who said that you/he didn't believe that the portion of DOMA that says that no state is required to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause, but what would the argument there?

I don't recall ever particularly weighing in on the subject on NSG before. My own belief is that Section 2 (the part you're refering to) probably is unconstitutionally violating the Full Faith and Credit clause..but that's another story.

What i Have said, I believe, is that I find Section 2 to be legally insignificant. Meaning, that either it violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and in which case it's impermissable, or it doesn't, it which case it doesn't do anything. All Section 2 does is say states don't have to recognize same sex marriages performed in other states. If that's unconstitutional, and I believe it is, then it's unconstitutional.

If it's NOT unconstitutional, than it's merely a legal truism. If states do not have to recognize as valid same sex marriages performed in another state, then they don't, DOMA notwithstanding.

So it's either illegal, or pointless.

That's true.

Also, Puerto Rico belongs to the 1st Circuit. Does it apply in the same way as it would to any other state in the Circuit, to your knowledge?

Yes, but Puerto Rico doesn't have same sex marriage, so it's slightly moot.

I know, but I was just curious in light of events in local politics.

[Galloism]

Can I convince you to expound upon that or do I need to go read the entire opinion?

Um. I'll try. Basically this. When a claim that a particular law violates the equal protection clause of the constitution, the Courts apply a specific level of scrutiny. What level depends on whom the plaintiff(s) allege is being treated unequally. For example, in cases of race, ethnicity, and national origin, the Courts apply a "strict scrutiny" standard. In other words, if a law discriminates on the basis of race, this is permissible, SOMETIMES, but the government better have a DAMN good reason for it, and the law better be as little restrictive as possible and still be able to bring about what it needs to do.

This is pretty much the logic that upheld japanese american internment in WWII, in Korematzu v. United States. When the allegedly discriminated party is not a "suspect classification", then the standard is MUCH lower. The "rational basis" test. A pretty much a "ehh, give us a good reason for this law to exist that's not just plain discrimination, and it will be upheld". This is pretty much the logic of why things like progessive tax brackets are constitutional. yes, people with more income are taxed at a higher percentage, and that's, in theory, not equal protection, but "the rich" are not a suspect classification, and, well, we have our reasons for doing that (history and logic behind suspect classification is LOOOOONG and complicated).

Now, in this case, the Plaintiffs made two arguments. One, it asked the courts NOT to apply the "rational basis" test, for various legal reasons, and argued secondly that even IF the court did apply the rational basis test, it still fails because the law is plainly discrimination for no other purpose. The Court didn't buy the second argument, outright stating "Under such a rational basis standard, the Gill plaintiffs cannot prevail."

HOWEVER, the Court did buy the first argument. It's a basic "you, plaintiffs, if we apply the rational basis standard, which is the standard usually used in cases of alleged discrimination on the basis of sexual oritentation, you lose. But we're not going to do that, and here's why".

It's the here's why that's complicated. The court said this:

However, the denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married does burden the choice of states like
Massachusetts to regulate the rules and incidents of marriage; notably, the Commonwealth stands both to assume new administrative
burdens and to lose funding for Medicaid or veterans' cemeteries solely on account of its same-sex marriage laws. These consequences
do not violate the Tenth Amendment or Spending Clause, but Congress' effort to put a thumb on the scales and influence a state's decision
as to how to shape its own marriage laws does bear on how the justifications are assessed.

In basic sense, the court is out and out saying DOMA DOES NOT violate the 10th amendment. it doesn't. HOWEVER, when federal law places a burden on the states, such as DOMA does, then that law must be reviewed with a higher standard of review. Higher than "rational basis". The easiest and most simple way I can put this in paraphrase is this:

"yo. Feds. If you just said 'hey, we're not gonna give same sex couples federal tax breaks' and gave us a reason of 'well, it'll keep tax revnues up and social security expenditures down' then we would be cool with that. That's a reason. Not a great one, but rational basis doesn't require a GOOD reason, just some reason that's not just 'we don't like gays'. And if that's all you did, then that's the standard we'd be stuck using, and we'd have to approve this bitch. But you started putting burdens on the states. And when the federal government puts burdens on the states through the law, we look at that law closely. And now that we're looking at this law more closely, and out of just a rational basis review level..you lose. 'some reason' isn't good enough anymore"

That's as simplistic as I can make it really. Basically, by burdening the states, the feds put themselves in a position that requires a hightened review of its law.

So, to make sure that my... understanding is correct (I'm currently on page 23, still reading the decision).

There are two issues. One is whether the law makes sense under equal protection, and what level of review the law deserves as far as determining if such constitutional protection is warranted.

Had DOMA been designed in a way that states were not burdened by its passage, only individuals, the lower standard of review would apply, and the entirety of DOMA would stand based upon only a nebulous reasoning that doesn't necessarily imply reality.

However, since DOMA burdened a state-managed program - IE, Medicare - a more heightened standard of review is required.

It is under this heightened standard that some of the provisions of DOMA - those addressed by the court - fail.

[Ifreann]

I'm quite aware of what I said. If the moral centre of America would oppress gays then hells yeah degrade it. Tie it up in the sex dungeon and degrade the shit out of it.

We would no longer be civilized. Abandoning the morals which have prevented Western civilization from killing itself off is the most idiotic thing one can do.

Oh sweetie, plenty of countries in the West have already legalised same-sex marriages and no ill has come from it. Don't you fret for Western civilisation, it'll be just fine.

[Buffett and Colbert]

Would you like some salt for that moral degradation? An extra helping of gay agenda? How about a side of destruction of family?

I'll be right with you.

I'm giving Tim Gunn a rusty trombone, so I have to type with one hand.

If you were truly gay, you could be preparing a martini while doing that.

[Unchecked Expansion]

"Cruelty?" Contrary to liberal belief, we are not Big Brothers who use torture on everyone who disagrees with us. They are guilty, they are guilty of sexual perversion. Sexual preference is their choice, and they simply have to face the consequences of that choice.

Sore asses?

Eh, we could always go back to sex between the thighs, like ancient Greeks.

[Neo Art]

There are two issues. One is whether the law makes sense under equal protection, and what level of review the law deserves as far as determining if such constitutional protection is warranted.

Those...aren't exactly the same things. More like "first we determine what level of review we use, or if we use one at all, and then we determine if, under that review, the law passes".

Had DOMA been designed in a way that states were not burdened by its passage, only individuals, the lower standard of review would apply, and the entirety of DOMA would stand based upon only a nebulous reasoning that doesn't necessarily imply reality.

However, since DOMA burdened a state-managed program - IE, Medicare - a more heightened standard of review is required.

It is under this heightened standard that some of the provisions of DOMA - those addressed by the court - fail.

Yes and no. The Court had other reasonings for its decision. More like "and for this reason ALSO". It's not a specific thing, more like a combination of all these things together, the Court didn't really say which you could pull out and leave it still standing.

[Ifreann]

Sore asses?

Eh, we could always go back to sex between the thighs, like ancient Greeks.

Appeal to tradition, eh? How conservative of you.

[Galloism]

There are two issues. One is whether the law makes sense under equal protection, and what level of review the law deserves as far as determining if such constitutional protection is warranted.

Those...aren't exactly the same things. More like "first we determine what level of review we use, or if we use one at all, and then we determine if, under that review, the law passes".

Had DOMA been designed in a way that states were not burdened by its passage, only individuals, the lower standard of review would apply, and the entirety of DOMA would stand based upon only a nebulous reasoning that doesn't necessarily imply reality.

However, since DOMA burdened a state-managed program - IE, Medicare - a more heightened standard of review is required.

It is under this heightened standard that some of the provisions of DOMA - those addressed by the court - fail.

Yes and no. The Court had other reasonings for its decision. More like "and for this reason ALSO". It's not a specific thing, more like a combination of all these things together, the Court didn't really say which you could pull out and leave it still standing.

Maybe I should just finish reading the decision.

[Hammurab]

Sore asses?

Eh, we could always go back to sex between the thighs, like ancient Greeks.

And some really fat people.

[Hammurab]

I'll be right with you.

I'm giving Tim Gunn a rusty trombone, so I have to type with one hand.

If you were truly gay, you could be preparing a martini while doing that.

Bad stomach, can't drink Martinis.

I like white russians.

Wow, that's even gayer, oh man...

[Ifreann]

Eh, we could always go back to sex between the thighs, like ancient Greeks.

And some really fat people.

And best of all: ancient fat Greeks.

[Hammurab]

And best of all: ancient far Greeks.

"Um...Belushiedes...you've eaten the goats."

"So? Get more"

"You've eaten all the goats. On the island. In their totality."

"I am to understand there is no goat meat today?"

"We brought you some slave babies and cheese."

"Alright. But arrange for more goats."

[Unchecked Expansion]

And some really fat people.

And best of all: ancient far Greeks.

Let us cavort, like the Greeks of old.