Appeals Court Rules DOMA Unconstitutional

A panel with two Republican judges
US News • Views: 26,655

Good news today from the US Court of Appeals: BREAKING: Two Republican Judges Declare DOMA Unconstitutional.

A three judge panel of The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit just handed down a decision declaring the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. Notably, the panel included Judges Juan Torruella and Michael Boudin, both of whom are Republican appointees. Judge Boudin, who authored the opinion, is one of the most highly regarded judges in the country; he frequently sends his former law clerks to clerk for Supreme Court justices.

This ensures that the Supreme Court will now have to consider the legality of the religious right’s last ditch attempt to enshrine bigotry as law.

Jump to bottom

30 comments
2 erik_t  Thu, May 31, 2012 1:44:53pm

re: #1 Kragar

And the fallout;

Conservatives Decry ‘Bizarre’ Ruling Finding DOMA Unconstitutional, Lament ‘East Coast Liberal Freak Show’

It’s extremely anti-conservative to strike down a federal over-reach that limits personal freedoms.

Because that makes sense.

3 researchok  Thu, May 31, 2012 1:44:58pm

re: #1 Kragar

Tell me you were surprised by the reaction.
/

4 gwangung  Thu, May 31, 2012 1:46:37pm

re: #1 Kragar

And the fallout;

Conservatives Decry ‘Bizarre’ Ruling Finding DOMA Unconstitutional, Lament ‘East Coast Liberal Freak Show’

There’s the West Coast, too, that’s more than happy with this decision.

And there are all those major urban centers in the middle of the country, like Chicago, St. Louis, Kansas City.

And…say….that’s substantially more than half the country there.

Hm.

5 dragonfire1981  Thu, May 31, 2012 1:48:30pm

I truly feel the same sex marriage issue could potentially trigger armed conflict if the Federal Government tried to legalize it nationwide, thus overriding some 30 states that have outlawed it. The red states would go INSANE if they felt they were being forced by the Feds to “normalize perversion”.

6 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 31, 2012 1:48:39pm

Just skimming through the court decision

Within three years after the Hawaii decision, DOMA was enacted with strong majorities in both Houses and signed into law by President Clinton.

Ya learn something new every day.

7 Kragar  Thu, May 31, 2012 1:49:07pm

re: #3 researchok

Tell me you were surprised by the reaction.
/

Shocked.

8 Simply Sarah  Thu, May 31, 2012 1:50:07pm

re: #6 Killgore Trout

Just skimming through the court decision

Ya learn something new every day.

Eh? What’s new there? It was 85–14 in the Senate and 342–67 in House and Clinton most certainly signed it.

9 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Thu, May 31, 2012 1:50:34pm

re: #6 Killgore Trout

Just skimming through the court decision

Ya learn something new every day.

I thought that was common knowledge.

10 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 31, 2012 1:51:54pm

re: #9 I’m back in the USSR (sigh)

I thought that was common knowledge.

I never thought to look into it before. It’s new to me.

11 Simply Sarah  Thu, May 31, 2012 1:52:29pm

re: #6 Killgore Trout

Just skimming through the court decision

Ya learn something new every day.

I mean, you need to recognize how rapidly the social and political situation around gay rights and gay marriage has shifted in the last few decades. In the mid 90s DOMA was ultra popular.

12 researchok  Thu, May 31, 2012 1:54:25pm

re: #7 Kragar

Mulder was right: You are not alone.

13 researchok  Thu, May 31, 2012 1:57:53pm

Line of the day;

George Bush, joking with President Obama:

“I am also pleased, Mr. President,” he said, “that when you are wandering these halls as you wrestle with tough decisions, you will now be able to gaze at this portrait and ask, ‘What would George do?’”

Other line of the day:

President Obama, on the Office of the Presidency:

As Mr. Obama put it: “We may have our differences politically, but the presidency transcends those differences. We all love this country. We all want America to succeed.”

14 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Thu, May 31, 2012 2:03:01pm

re: #10 Killgore Trout

I never thought to look into it before. It’s new to me.

DADT was “Clinton’s” too.
And Bob Barr is now against DOMA.

15 erik_t  Thu, May 31, 2012 2:04:34pm

re: #14 I’m back in the USSR (sigh)

DADT was “Clinton’s” too.
And Bob Barr is now against DOMA.

DADT was, astonishingly, pretty progressive for the time.

Minds can change rapidly, pervasively, for the better. It gives me hope.

16 Achilles Tang  Thu, May 31, 2012 2:04:42pm

re: #1 Kragar

And the fallout;

Conservatives Decry ‘Bizarre’ Ruling Finding DOMA Unconstitutional, Lament ‘East Coast Liberal Freak Show’

The Tea Party (aka GOP) says:

the simple fact is for the last sixty years or so; the left has been attacking the basic family unit. The end result of this has been the creation of poverty where none existed before. It has been the creation of an under class, born and raised in poverty, unlikely to escape poverty and encouraged to engage in the same behaviors that landed their parents in poverty.

All this because because their parents were …. gay??// My brain hurts.

17 Kragar  Thu, May 31, 2012 2:05:14pm

Mistrial on 5 counts for the Edward’s trial. Not guilty on one count.

18 Achilles Tang  Thu, May 31, 2012 2:06:51pm

re: #17 Kragar

Mistrial on 5 counts for the Edward’s trial. Not guilty on one count.

Were any of those jurors on the OJ trial?

19 blueraven  Thu, May 31, 2012 2:08:57pm

re: #18 Achilles Tang

Were any of those jurors on the OJ trial?

I dont think they had a good case against him.

Yes he is an ass, but legally? Not much there.
Especially in the wake of citizens united.

20 wrenchwench  Thu, May 31, 2012 2:10:58pm

re: #5 dragonfire1981

I truly feel the same sex marriage issue could potentially trigger armed conflict if the Federal Government tried to legalize it nationwide, thus overriding some 30 states that have outlawed it. The red states would go INSANE if they felt they were being forced by the Feds to “normalize perversion”.

Don’t go all PGL on us.

Random attacks, I could see, but “armed conflict”?

21 erik_t  Thu, May 31, 2012 2:12:15pm

re: #16 Achilles Tang

‘the simple fact is for the last sixty years or so; the left has been attacking the basic family unit. The end result of this has been the creation of poverty where none existed before. It has been the creation of an under class, born and raised in poverty, unlikely to escape poverty and encouraged to engage in the same behaviors that landed their parents in poverty.’

Poverty didn’t exist until FDR helped end the Great Depression.

Derp.

22 gwangung  Thu, May 31, 2012 2:15:53pm

re: #16 Achilles Tang

The Tea Party (aka GOP) says:

All this because because their parents were … gay??// My brain hurts.

Hm…actually, I thought the figures showed that poverty went DOWN with Democratic social programs and they only came back when Republicans started hacking away at social programs.

23 Lidane  Thu, May 31, 2012 2:17:58pm

For laughs I ventured to the wingnut blogs for reaction. Both the Freepers and HotAir readers are reacting accordingly.

24 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Thu, May 31, 2012 2:20:46pm

HAR HAR WE HAVE PERVERTED AMERIKA

25 CriticalDragon1177  Thu, May 31, 2012 5:05:23pm

Charles Johnson,

This is excellent news. Lets see what happens now. Fingers crossed that the supreme court overturns DOMA.

26 CriticalDragon1177  Thu, May 31, 2012 5:06:52pm

re: #23 Lidane

For laughs I ventured to the wingnut blogs for reaction. Both the Freepers and HotAir readers are reacting accordingly.

Lidane,

Why am I not surprised?

27 Nick Schroeder  Thu, May 31, 2012 7:45:19pm

Does this actually go to the Supreme Court? I thought the Obama Justice Department was no longer fighting this. Wouldn’t a higher court require an appeal?

28 CriticalDragon1177  Thu, May 31, 2012 9:27:47pm

re: #27 Nick Schroeder

Does this actually go to the Supreme Court? I thought the Obama Justice Department was no longer fighting this. Wouldn’t a higher court require an appeal?

Nick Schroeder,

That’s a good point. Didn’t Obama recently come out in favor of gay marriage?

29 benf_dc  Fri, Jun 1, 2012 4:07:52am

DOMA was not a last-ditch effort by the religious right to enshrine bigotry as law. It passed both houses of Congress by an overwhelming margin, and President Clinton’s signing statement, while decrying discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, included the following:

I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position. The Act confirms the right of each state to determine its own policy with respect to same gender marriage and clarifies for purposes of federal law the operative meaning of the terms “marriage” and “spouse.”

The religious right is certainly the dominant force behind the present-day efforts to preserve bigotry as law through its defense of DOMA and its efforts in the states, but it isn’t acting alone by any stretch of the imagination.

30 benf_dc  Fri, Jun 1, 2012 4:16:21am

re: #27 Nick Schroeder

The First Circuit allowed third parties to press this appeal after the Obama administration elected to drop its defense of DOMA. As the court explained in its decision:

The Justice Department filed a brief in this court defending DOMA against all constitutional claims. Thereafter, altering its position, the Justice Department filed a revised brief arguing that the equal protection claim should be assessed under a “heightened scrutiny” standard and that DOMA failed under that standard. It opposed the separate Spending Clause and Tenth Amendment claims pressed by the Commonwealth. The Gill plaintiffs defend the district court judgment on all three grounds.

A delay in proceedings followed the Justice Department’s about face while defense of the statute passed to a group of Republican leaders of the House of Representatives—the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (“the Legal Group”)—who retained counsel and intervened in the appeal to support section 3. A large number of amicus briefs have been filed on both sides of the dispute, some on both sides proving very helpful to the court.

The Supreme Court can hear the case if it chooses, or can deny certiorari and allow the First Circuit’s verdict to stand.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh