NEW YORK (AP) — Saying the gay population has “suffered a history of discrimination,” a divided federal appeals court in Manhattan ruled Thursday that a federal law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman was unconstitutional, adding fuel to an issue expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court soon.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals seemed interested in adding its voice to several other rulings already at the high court’s doorstep by issuing its 2-to-1 decision only three weeks after hearing arguments on a lower court judge’s findings that the 1996 law was unconstitutional.
In a majority opinion written by Judge Dennis Jacobs, the 2nd Circuit, like a federal appeals court in Boston before it, found no reason the Defense of Marriage Act could be used to deny benefits to married gay couples. It supported a lower court ruling after a woman sued the government in 2010, saying the law required her to pay $363,053 in federal estate tax after her partner of 44 years died.
Jacobs, though, went beyond the Boston court, saying discrimination against gays should be scrutinized by the courts in the same heightened way as discrimination faced by women was in the 1970s. At the time, he noted, they faced widespread discrimination in the workplace and elsewhere. The heightened scrutiny, as it is referred to in legal circles, would mean government discrimination against gays would be assumed to be unconstitutional.
“The question is not whether homosexuals have achieved political successes over the years; they clearly have. The question is whether they have the strength to politically protect themselves from wrongful discrimination,” said Jacobs, who was appointed to the bench in 1992 by President George H.W. Bush.
This case will probably headed to the Supreme Court. It is obviously a civil rights case. Most people apparently don’t care one way or the other if gays marry. Most of us also see no reason to discriminate against them.
Like most laws dealing with rights, equality will only come from court rulings. Desegregation, women’s rights, reproductive rights, gay rights and ending anti sodomy laws will only become codified through the courts. Obviously referendum and state legislation will not take place.
Gays seem to be one of the last groups where people feel free to bash and to deny rights. When challenged, many who would deny rights fall back on their religious beliefs. Sorry, religious beliefs won’t get to be the law of the land much longer.
Awesome! Soon, 10 guys, 2 monkeys, an a Bobcat can marry a llama, three dogs, and two camels! Woo-Hoo!!
Seriously, though, I think we need to focus on man-sheep marriages.
We must respect the Constitutional rights of our citizens. This is a good decision.
Slowpoke, I understand that you are disinterested in social issues and in women’s issues. Frankly, I don’t really care if you are bored or not. Stop acting like a petulant child. If you aren’t interested, then just SDASTFU.
It isn’t mandatory to say something here. Many of us are interested in the social and womens issues. Even if 2 people are interested, that’s enough for me. I would rather do the work for 2 interested people than have to entertain a gaggle of jackasses.
@Starryflights
Starry, I agree. while gay marriage doesn’t affect me one way or the other, in just seems wrong to allow one set of people to do something and not allow another group the same right.
Translation: “We’re not interested in hearing from those who do not agree with us”. Yeah, I know.
Actually, I don’t mind people who say intelligent things,even if I disagree. What I mind is noise.
You have a reason why you think it is a bad idea? I am happy to talk about it. I don’t care one way or the other except from a civil rights point of view. My reasons are fairly unemotional.
Llamas and dogs marrying is just stupid and childish. Now, if you want to talk about dog on dog marriage….perhaps.
Look, I don’t mind being lumped in with a DROVE of jackasses, a HERD of jackasses, or even a PACE of jackasses, but it is politically incorrect to say a “gaggle” of jackasses, and I find it extremely offensive.
honk honk…you probably should. A drove of jackasses…hmmmmm. I guess I was mixing my animal groups. I had to go look them all up. Do you ever wonder who comes up with these group names?
How about a wake of buzzards?
http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/about/faqs/animals/names.htm
I don’t now, but I do find it interesting.
Wake of buzzards was my favorite. Second favorite is a murder of crows.
How about a murder of crows?
That’s one of my favorites.
I once witnessed a crow vs seagull war. The crows actually won.
Without commenting on the gay marriage idea…
It’s interesting to note….there is no “right” to get married. The state controls that. One must get a license, ie, permission, to marry. And everyone has the same opportunity: To marry someone of the opposite sex, one at a time, as per state requirements.
Of course, a simple, libertarian fix is to get government completely out of the marriage business. Well…not so simple. A lot of laws would have to be changed. Marriage used to be important because it was so improper to live together as “man and wife” without it. Now…anyone can live together, in any combination, with any number of geometric connections available, without censure. Set it up so that ANYONE can get the legal benefits of marriage by way of contract.
Of course, my idea would be an even greater disruption of the legal and social fabric, but if we going to disrupt thousands of years of social fabric anyway…..