What do DOMA and the Wisconsin have in common?

[John Adams]

Doma has yet to be found unconstitutional, you have it ass backwards....

obamacare on the ohter hand, is no longer the law of the land as of today...

Continued implementation is to be in contempt of the Judge's ruling....

[hoosier_daddy]

of course it has, you dumbfuck. 6 states and the district of columbia have made same sex marriages legal, based on the ruling of the prevailing federal judge.   why don't you know anything?  it's like you wake up in the morning just looking for crazy, lying, misinformed shit to post for the next 10 hours non-stop.  do you ever get tired of being wrong all the time?

[sweetwater5s9]

What will be undefended next?

The Supreme Court has decided:

1. That the first and second sections of the Civil Rights Act, are unconstitutional, as applied to the States -- not being authorized by the 13th and 14th Amendments.

2. That the 14th Amendment is prohibitory upon the States only, and the legislation forbidden to be adopted by Congress for enforcing it, is not "direct" legislation, but "corrective," -- such as may be necessary or proper for counteracting and restraining the effect of laws or acts passed or done by the several States.

Neither does the Court decide whether the law, as it stands, is operative in the District of Columbia.

The Act regulated actions of private companies rather than state governments.

[John Adams]

of course it has, you dumbfuck. 6 states and the district of columbia have made same sex marriages legal, based on the ruling of the prevailing federal judge.   why don't you know anything?  it's like you wake up in the morning just looking for crazy, lying, misinformed shit to post for the next 10 hours non-stop.  do you ever get tired of being wrong all the time?

No it has not, if you contend that it is so,
 
provide the relevant case, the ruling, and the judges opinion....
 
This has been axed of you previously with no reply so we do not expect one here....
 
DOMA has NOT been ruled unconstitutional.....
 
It is still law of the land....

[hoosier_daddy]

I don't think you understand even a tiny little bit what is happening.  as usual.  Department of Justice is still ENFORCING DOMA, it is just not DEFENDING IT in higher courts.  there is a distinct difference.   

[hoosier_daddy]

so is health care reform, adams, but you say obama should stop the implementation because 2 out of 17 federal judges have ruled against it.  DOMA has been called unconstitutional by a federal judge in Massachusetts, and 6 states and the District of Columbia have ENACTED SAME SEX MARRIAGE LAWS WHICH FLIES IN THE FACE OF DOMA.....like i said, there is no difference between the legal status of health care reform and DOMA, and yet you want obama to act differently in each case...how can you explain that?

[John Adams]

Seek judicial assistance.....
 
Judge Rodger Vinson declared the obamacare unconstitutional, declared null and void and has yet to be appealed.....
 
No DOMA case has yet to be found Unconstitutional as the case in mass is currently under appeal, therefore not decided...
 
In the case of obamacare, should barry not appeal and should the USSC not take the case, which they are not obligated to do, especially if no effort to appeal has been made, Judge Vinson's ruling stands in spite of any and all other Judges who may have ruled in the affirmative....
 
That is how the Judicial system works and has since the inception of this Country.....

[sweetwater5s9]

A lawsuit by 26 state attorney generals, has held and stands that Obamacare is unconstitutional. 
 
The mandate is unconstitutional, and the mandate cannot be severed from the rest of the law, requiring that the entire law be deemed unconstitutional.

Even the DC judge agreed about the mandate.

[John Adams]

hoi boy got his board law degree form the USTA(United States Tennis Association), where the score between two opponents determines the outcome....

[hoosier_daddy]

you have no concept of how it works.  seriously.  you are just babbling.  there is no difference between the 2 of 17 federal judges ruling against health care reform and the federal judge in Massachusetts ruling that DOMA is unconstitutional.  none.  nada.  zero.   why do you think there is?  that's what i am talking about...you just don't have a clue...and besides the Massachusetts judge-

The DOJ has just announced, in the context of two cases challenging the Defense of Marriage Act in the Second Circuit, that it will no longer defend the law against constitutional attack.  In a press release, the Attorney General announced:
After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination.
This is, obviously, very big news, and represents a significant shift in the DOJ’s litigation posture in the pending DOMA cases.  The DOJ justifies the shift by arguing that in the earlier DOMA cases, like Gill v. OPM, governing authority in the First Circuit had precluded the application of heightened scrutiny to classifications based on sexual orientation.  But the Second Circuit, notes the Department, has never decided the level of scrutiny applicable to discrimination burdening gays and lesbians.  At the same time, the DOJ says that it will continue to enforce DOMA until Congress repeals it or until there is a definitive judicial decision striking it down.
In a victory for gay rights advocates, a federal judge has ruled that state employees in California can sue for discrimination over the federal government's exclusion of their same-sex spouses from a long-term health care program.
U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken of Oakland denied an Obama administration request to dismiss the suit Tuesday and signaled that she is likely to overturn provisions of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal benefits to same-sex couples.
This ruling from Wilken was only on the Obama administration's motion to dismiss the case, but as the San Francisco Chronicle's article shows, the Judge is taking aim at DOMA:
But Wilken said the 1996 law actually changed the status quo by "robbing states of the power to allow same-sex civil marriages that will be recognized under federal law."
She also rejected arguments that the law's sponsors put forth in 1996, that the legislation was necessary to promote procreation and preserve heterosexual marriage.
"Marriage has never been contingent on having children," Wilken said, and denying federal benefits to same-sex couples "does not encourage heterosexual marriage."
She said sponsors' "moral rejection of homosexuality" had been obvious in congressional debate. The U.S. Supreme Court has found that bias against gays is an unconstitutional justification for passing a law, Wilken noted.

[hoosier_daddy]

attorney generals cannot strike down federal law.....are you insane?  do you really think racist southern states WANTED to treat blacks like normal citizens after the Civil Rights Act was passed?  you are incredibly misinformed.  you are bringing up irrelevant shit.  it doesn't matter what state attorney generals say.  they are not the supreme court. 

[John Adams]

The Mass case is under appeal and has not yet been heard....

Regardless of the Judge's finding before the appeal, the law remains law of the land until the appeal process is completed....

That is how it works....