Federal court strikes down federal law banning same-sex marriage
May 31st, 2012
11:36 AM ET
2 years ago

Federal court strikes down federal law banning same-sex marriage

(CNN) - A law banning federal recognition of same-sex marriage was struck down as unconstitutional by a federal appeals court Thursday.

The Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage for federal purposes as unions only between a man and woman.

FULL STORY

Filed under: Same-sex marriage
soundoff (20 Responses)
  1. rs

    For everyone who says the GOP is about "protecting Freedoms", they really need to examine the GOP agenda-whose rights they are resiricting and the look at our courts and Constitution. It is abundantly clear that the GOP is still a segregationist, elistist party that works only for a select few in America. The courts and Consitution almost always fall on the side of rights and freedom!

    May 31, 2012 11:44 am at 11:44 am |
  2. GROVER NORQUIST IS A ENEMY OF THE STATE/ConservaFASCISTS

    It's about time these courts realize the unconstitutionality of DOMA. Equality is a civil right. Precisely why we can't elect Willard as POTUS because he doesn't even know that "Civil Rights" was the civil rights debate of his era.

    May 31, 2012 11:55 am at 11:55 am |
  3. Myviewis

    @rs – do you realize that the very thing you are accusing the GOP of doing is what Bloomberg is doing by banning, illegalizing the sale of a 16 oz. fluid sugary beverage, in the name of fighting Obesity? Seriously, it is Democrats who like government control, telling people what they can eat, drink, it is Democrats leading the banning of certain foods. Don't you agree people have the freedom and right to eat and drink whatever they want just as much as they have the right to gay marriage and abortion?

    May 31, 2012 11:59 am at 11:59 am |
  4. Wake up people

    Awesome! The government should have absolutely no say in who marries who. They are in our business enough!

    Equal rights for all Americans!

    May 31, 2012 12:00 pm at 12:00 pm |
  5. Fair is Fair

    On to the Supreme Court.

    May 31, 2012 12:03 pm at 12:03 pm |
  6. Sniffit

    Good news. However, yuo failed to report on rudimentary facts like which circuit court and the names of the 3 justices...basic facts that should have been contained in anything claiing to constitute "journalism."

    May 31, 2012 12:05 pm at 12:05 pm |
  7. Kandice Wallace

    Yes!! It's about time, they conclude this issue. So tired of hearing about it! Every Amercan has equal rights!... No American can get same sex benefits. It's not constitutional nor is it a federal issue. Keep your business at home.

    May 31, 2012 12:06 pm at 12:06 pm |
  8. MDNA = MaDge Not Applicable!

    A unanimous decision declaring DOMA unconstitutional, and 2 of the 3 judges were members of the GOP!

    Who knew at least two members of the GOP are actually FOR equal rights for all "Amercians"?

    May 31, 2012 12:10 pm at 12:10 pm |
  9. Myviewis

    @Wake up people – I agree that government has no business telling us what we can and cannot eat, drink, marry, abortion, business. Government involvement in our lives, businesses is becoming too large.

    May 31, 2012 12:12 pm at 12:12 pm |
  10. Fair is Fair

    Good news. However, yuo failed to report on rudimentary facts like which circuit court and the names of the 3 justices...basic facts that should have been contained in anything claiing to constitute "journalism."
    ------
    Rut-roh... Someone who constantly berates others for not reading the article didn't read the article.

    May 31, 2012 12:21 pm at 12:21 pm |
  11. demwit

    The supreme court should not overturn a law passed by the majority of the congress, – Obama

    May 31, 2012 12:29 pm at 12:29 pm |
  12. Sniffit

    "Rut-roh... Someone who constantly berates others for not reading the article didn't read the article."

    To be fair, I posted that before they posted the full article link. They corrected themselves and that's good enough for me.

    May 31, 2012 12:32 pm at 12:32 pm |
  13. Sniffit

    "do you realize that the very thing you are accusing the GOP of doing is what Bloomberg is doing by banning, illegalizing the sale of a 16 oz. fluid sugary beverage, in the name of fighting Obesity?"

    Bloomy's not a Dem.

    May 31, 2012 12:33 pm at 12:33 pm |
  14. Sniffit

    "Don't you agree people have the freedom and right to eat and drink whatever they want just as much as they have the right to gay marriage and abortion?"

    There's a distrinction with a difference between saying "nobody is allowed to eat or drink this" and regulating an industry that serves those things to limit the amount of it they serve. Stop confusing the two. They are NOT the same. You can still go to the grocery store, buy a two liter of soda and chug it irresponsibly...just liek someone can do the same thing with a bottle of bourbon. Nobody is complaining, however, that bars are prohibited from serving people 16oz glasses of bourbon, neat. I'm not personally decided on the issue and would take it on a case by case basis of the legislation, but there is plenty of evidence of the widespread pandemic of obesity and the health problems it causes and the resulting financial and other societal problems that flow from it to support at least a colorable argument under the rational relations test in terms of the Commerce, Welfare and Necessary and Proper clauses.

    May 31, 2012 12:39 pm at 12:39 pm |
  15. Sniffit

    "The supreme court should not overturn a law passed by the majority of the congress, – Obama"

    So full of nuance, aren't you? He never said that nor implied it. He was referring to the deference the judicial branch is supposed to show towards the factual findings contained in the legislative record and the decisions made by Congress in certain matters...something so pervasive in SCOTUS precedent and so widely discussed in the cases that it cannot be denied.

    May 31, 2012 12:41 pm at 12:41 pm |
  16. Anonymous

    "
    @rs – do you realize that the very thing you are accusing the GOP of doing is what Bloomberg is doing by banning, illegalizing the sale of a 16 oz. fluid sugary beverage, in the name of fighting Obesity? Seriously, it is Democrats who like government control, telling people what they can eat, drink, it is Democrats leading the banning of certain foods. Don't you agree people have the freedom and right to eat and drink whatever they want just as much as they have the right to gay marriage and abortion?"

    LOL! Here our serial disinformation specialist makes a horrid attempt to equate banning gay marriage with banning certain food/drink. Then she doubles down on her error by falsely calling Bloomberg a Dem. She's a trip people, and she's a specialist when it comes to spreading disinformation. Keep an eye on this one!

    May 31, 2012 12:46 pm at 12:46 pm |
  17. Sniffit

    "It's a complex law and should keep premiums lower......."

    The ACA is already forcing the insurance industry to rebate $1,300,000,000 in insurance premiums THIS YEAR because of the provision that requires insurers to spend at least 80% of the remiums they receive on actually providing health care services. Over $500M is going back to large employers, over $400M is going back to small businesses nad over $300M is going back to the self-insured....instead of into CEO/executive pockets, yachts, golden toilets and golden parachutes for finding new and inventive ways of taking premiums and avoiding using them on health care. The MSM has studiously ignored reporting on this FACT.

    May 31, 2012 12:56 pm at 12:56 pm |
  18. Fair is Fair

    @ Larry L -

    "It's a complex law and should keep premiums lower. Still, as I read the provisions of the law I can't see hard evidence to directly support either of your claims. I can't see much required of individuals until 2014 but the law is being slowly phased-in since 2010. Many states are dragging their feet for political purposes. In 2014 the law requires persons to obtain “acceptable” health insurance coverage ( the individual mandate) or pay an annual penalty. Families will pay half the amount for children, up to a cap of $2,250 per family. This provision is required to make the math work – since most of the law is designed to help physicians and patients rather than insurance companies and HMOs."
    ------–
    No one is arguing with what YOU said, even though it has nothing to do with the post in question. However, the poster explicitly stated that the ACA PREVENTS insurance premiums from going up... which is either (a) a result of being completely misinformed or (b) a direct attempt to misinform. I stand by my statements.

    May 31, 2012 12:57 pm at 12:57 pm |
  19. rs

    MyViewIs-
    Surely you are not equating the withholding of civil rights or librerties (of in this case gays- but let's not forget the GOP's belief that women can not be trusted with their own bodies, or that the poor and elderly should vote), with possible limits on the purchase of unhealthy food items (one proposed by a NY Republican no less)?

    I stand by my original statement.

    May 31, 2012 01:06 pm at 1:06 pm |
  20. Rudy NYC

    demwit wrote:

    The supreme court should not overturn a law passed by the majority of the congress, – Obama
    ----------–
    You've got it backwards. They shouldn't overturn. It's already been struck down by a lower court.

    May 31, 2012 01:06 pm at 1:06 pm |