Prop. 8 & DOMA Predictions.

The "National Organization for Marriage" (NOM), that is a PAC for the Mormon Church, will probably provide funding. It doesn't really matter though because DOMA Section 3 is an obvious violation of both the 10th and 14th Amendments. As noted I anticipate a unanimous Supreme Court decision striking it down because it cannot be logically argued that it doesn't infringe upon the Rights of States to define marriage or that it doesn't deny legally married couples federal benefits that are based upon the legal institution of marriage that is a matter of State authority, not federal authority.

DOMA Section 3 violates both a conservative and a progressive interpretation of the US Constitution which is why it will be a unanimous decision to declare it unconstitutional.

 

Today the Second District Court of Appeals has joined the First District Court of Appeals in declaring DOMA Section 3 unconstitutional. This was based upon a lawsuit by an individual and not based upon a State initiated lawsuit so it only addresed DOMA based upon a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment whereas the First District Court of Appeals also addressed it as a matter of infringment upon the authority of the State under the 10th Amendment.

Unlike the First District Court of Appeals decision this was a 2:1 split decision and I always take the time to understand dessenting opinions as well as the majority opinion.

http://news.yahoo.com/appeals-court-ny-rules-gay-marriage-law-unconstitutional-160159196.html

This is an interesting opinion because the judge is stating that the American People should decide but DOMA is a federal law and the American People cannot create, change or repeal federal legislation. My question to the Judge would have to be, "How can the American People decide the federal definition of marriage when the American People have no legislative authority related to federal laws?" The judge puts forward a proposition that is impossible for the People to address at the federal level of government. That is an invalid criteria IMO.

 

I pretty much stopped reading the dissent at that point, since it didn't make any sense.

 

I have read both majority and minority opinions that don't make sense and then I've read majority and minority opinions that both made sense.

As noted, this one really doesn't make a lot of sense. While the woman filing the suit was married in Canada what about those married in a state where the "People" have decided that same-sex marriage is legal? The Judge's decision would directly violate the "will of the People" that he gave for supporting DOMA. He can't have it both ways where the People can choose to allow same-sex marriage but the federal government denies it.