Subscribe via RSS Feed

DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional in Federal Court

[ 24 ] February 22, 2012 |

A good first step, anyway. More when I have a chance to read the opinion, although we can be confident that the George W. Bush appointee Jeffrey White is some sort of free-thinking anarchist.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Hogan

    Golinski, represented by Lambda Legal, “was denied spousal health benefits by her employer, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.”

    Oh man. This is going to be more fun than people should be allowed to have.

    • DrDick

      Popcorn time!

    • Malaclypse

      If there really were a kind and beneficent God, her employer would have been the Romney campaign.

      • DrDick

        Now you know why I am an agnostic.

        • joe from Lowell

          Nope. I still can’t say, one way or the other.

  • SamR

    An a free-thinking anarchist totalitarian who supports an atheist Caliphate under sharia law, if you can believe it. Dastardly.

  • cpinva

    always be suspicious of guys who keep their house/lawn tidy, and dress/groom neatly!

    An a free-thinking anarchist totalitarian who supports an atheist Caliphate under sharia law, if you can believe it. Dastardly.

    i’m not surprised, i thought it was bogus when clinton signed it. what still surprises me is why he ever signed it to begin with. he knew it would never survive judicial scrutiny, and has recently admitted as much. it also surprises me that it took this long for it to be challenged. i thought for sure it would be litigated before clinton left office.

    • Holden Pattern

      Much as we might mock the wingnutterati howls about Dem weakness and appeasement of foreign dictators, they are only generalizing from the evidence presented to them in domestic affairs.

    • David Kaib

      It fits a larger pattern of taking conservative positions in the misguided belief it would make it easier to pursue other elements of the Democratic agenda. That is the essence of neoliberal politics.

    • LKS

      what still surprises me is why he ever signed it to begin with. he knew it would never survive judicial scrutiny,

      Uh, that’s why he signed it. It’s why a lot of politicians who know better vote for shit like the Virginia State Mandated Rape Law – they assume the courts will throw it out, so they think there’s no downside to climbing aboard this crap.

    • There was some concern at the time that if DOMA was vetoed, there was the possibility of a constitutional amendment. So DOMA constituted kicking the can down the road a bit until the mood of the country evolved a bit.

      It’s a weaselly justification, but I can’t say there wasn’t some truth to it.

  • MAJeff

    I doubt this aspect of the decision will survive appeal (esp if it goes to SCOTUS), but Judge White used heightened scrutiny.

    • efgoldman

      Also too, that sumbitch can write. The text quoted in the link is the very example of clarity.

      • Bill

        I also enjoyed this bit from footnote 5:

        The analysis of the fundamental right to marry has not depended upon the characteristics of the spouse. The Supreme Court cases addressing the fundamental right to marry do not define the fundamental right in narrow terms. In Loving, the Court defined the fundamental right as the right to marry, not the right to interracial marriage. In Turner, the fundamental right was the right to marry, not the right to inmate marriage. In Zablocki, the fundamental right was the right to marry, not the right of people owing child support to marry.

    • rea

      Well, but all the cases dealing with the right to marry have applied some form of heightened scrutiny (although analysis is confused by Justice Marshall’s attempt to develope and apply an “intermediate scrutiny” (rather than “strict scrutiny”)test in Zablocki).

      • MAJeff

        This decision applies heightened scrutiny to sexual orientation, though, not to the right to marry. That’s probably because the plaintiff was already legally married.

  • San Pedro Laker Fan

    Further proof that George W. Bush was in fact a Liberal.

    • Holden Pattern

      Ladeez and Gennulmen, Poe’s Law in action.

      • Gary Ruppert

        The fact is, hear in the heartland, we kno that both Bushs were secret Lieberals, while Nobama is an agent of the Kenyan/North Korean government, intent on putting floride in our water, stealing the virtues of our wimmen, and sapping our bodily essnces. Honrable Bob explained it all in his valuble newsletter.

    • DrDick

      Nah, he just accidentally nominated and actual strict constructionist.

  • Tcaalaw

    we can be confident that the George W. Bush appointee Jeffrey White is some sort of free-thinking anarchist

    I think the accusations will instead be that he is either (a) a closeted homosexual (I’m sure WND and the usual suspects are already digging through his trash cans), or (b) less likely, he caved to the liberal cocktail party crowd, or (c) least likely, that he wants to get a Circuit Court of Appeals appointment and is sucking up to Obama.

    • Anderson

      less likely, he caved to the liberal cocktail party crowd

      I was wondering about this the other day; wingnuts seem convinced that cocktail parties are (1) seductive and (2) liberal.

      I have never found them to be either, tho I do find seductive a Manhattan with a liberal amount of rye.

      Just another data point for the fundamental element of ressentiment in the Republican character.

      • Bill Murray

        I thought that Megan McArdle’s cocktail parties were the top, the coliseum

        • spud

          Well the pickups are better at the liberal cocktail parties. Liberals are all for consensual relations with non procreative nookie.

          Conservatives seem to like forcibly sodomizing women, approval of rape, adultery, constant pregnancy, and looking down on relations of anyone who s not clergy. They are just no fun.