Tampilkan postingan dengan label DOMA. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label DOMA. Tampilkan semua postingan

Jumat, 24 Februari 2012

Boehner and Republicans appeal DOMA ruling


On Wednesday a federal court struck down Section 3 of DOMA as unconstitutional.

Today GOP House Speaker John Boehner ordered that ruling appealed.

In court papers, a group of congressional Republicans defending the federal gay marriage ban revealed they are appealing the ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The 9th Circuit will become the second federal appeals court to now consider the legality of the Defense of Marriage Act, a 16-year-old law known as DOMA.

The Obama administration has sided with Golinski in the case, arguing that DOMA is unconstitutional.

Republicans, led by House Speaker John Boehner, have jumped in to defend the law, filing the notice of appeal on Friday. With cases unfolding in several federal courts, many experts predict the issue will wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court.

On and on it goes kids. It's clear which way history is headed. Clear.

In 50 years, those who want to keep inequality as the law of the land will look as strange and unseemly as the white supremacists and bigots of the last century do now regarding rights for African Americans.

Jumat, 17 Februari 2012

Obama Administration won't defend denial of military benefits for same-sex married couples


The Obama Justice Department has concluded that laws banning same-sex couples from receiving military and veterans benefits violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment, and will no longer defend the statute in court, Attorney General Eric Holder wrote in a letter to Congressional leaders on Friday.

“The legislative record of these provisions contains no rationale for providing veterans’ benefits to opposite-sex couples of veterans but not to legally married same-sex spouses of veterans,” Holder wrote. “Neither the Department of Defense nor the Department of Veterans Affairs identified any justifications for that distinction that would warrant treating these provisions differently from Section 3 of DOMA.”

Read more at TalkingPointsMemo.com