n*******t
发帖数: 7254 | |
n*******t
发帖数: 7254 | 2 According to National Journal, President Barack Obama has declared the Defen
se of Marriage act unconstitutional. The administration made the announcemen
t a few minutes ago and will alert Congress later today:
"The President believes that DOMA is unconstitutional. They are no longe
r going to be defending the cases in the 1st and 2nd circuits," a person bri
efed on the decision said.
Attorney General Eric Holder confirmed the report in a statement to the pres
s:
After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, th
e President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a docume
nted history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation
should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President h
as 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 d
efend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determ
ination.
【在 n*******t 的大作中提到】
: http://www.salon.com/news/gay_marriage/?story=/politics/war_roo
|
q*****m
发帖数: 3339 | 3 gr8!!!
Defen
【在 n*******t 的大作中提到】
: According to National Journal, President Barack Obama has declared the Defen
: se of Marriage act unconstitutional. The administration made the announcemen
: t a few minutes ago and will alert Congress later today:
: "The President believes that DOMA is unconstitutional. They are no longe
: r going to be defending the cases in the 1st and 2nd circuits," a person bri
: efed on the decision said.
: Attorney General Eric Holder confirmed the report in a statement to the pres
: s:
: After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, th
: e President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a docume
|
g********d
发帖数: 4174 | 4 How could you be faster than me? Just kidding.
Great news!!! I think this is a major step. But the implications remain to
be seen. |
g********d
发帖数: 4174 | 5 Let's celebrate it with Baozi!!!! |
m******1
发帖数: 19713 | |
k*****e
发帖数: 22013 | 7 他说没用吧，
违宪审查权在高院，马伯里诉麦迪逊经典案例确立下的。
他只是表个态而已。
【在 m******1 的大作中提到】
: 光说这么一句有用吗？
: 版上有懂法律的吗给讲讲？
|
g********d
发帖数: 4174 | 8 Name: Jay
Date posted: 2/23/2011 2:09:01 PM
Hometown: Santa Monica
Comment:
Richard, what this means is that the Justice Department will no longer argue
that section 3 of DOMA (the part of the law that denies federal benefits to
legally married same-sex couples) is constitutional. Instead, the
Department will inform that courts that it believes the law is
unconstitutional. It will also inform the courts, particularly in the second
circuit, which has not decided this issue, that claims of discrimination on
the basis of sexual orientation require a heightened scrutiny rather than a
more deferential "rational standard" review. This is very big news.
Congress, of course, is likely to continue to defend the law, but the
Justice Department's opinion should be influential to some courts. See the
article on DOMA at glbtq.com, which outlines the issues in several cases. |
g********d
发帖数: 4174 | 9 Name: Kevin
Date posted: 2/23/2011 2:25:37 PM
Hometown: New Orleans
Comment:
Jessica and Haven who seem to think that if we prevail in these cases all
states will have to recognize same-sex marriages. Not true. These cases
challenge only section 3 of DOMA, the section that says that the federal
government cannot recognize same-sex marriage. So even if we prevail in
these cases and you are legally married in, say, Massachusetts and return to
Tennessee, Tennessee would not have to recognize your marriage. But the
federal government would, and that is very important since many of the
benefits showered on married couples are federal benefits: federal tax
breaks, social security survivor benefits, immigration rights, etc. So it
would vastly expand the benefits offered to same-sex married couples even if
you live in a state that does not recognize your marriage. My partner and I
live in a state that will not recognize same-sex marriage, but if the feds
do, we will go to Iowa or Vermont and get married. |
m******1
发帖数: 19713 | 10 我觉得也是，历史意义大于实际作用，决定权还是在司法机构吧？最多也就是表明奥巴马不给阻力了。他在这个时候突然改口，到底是为啥呢？总统干腻味了，不想连任了？
【在 k*****e 的大作中提到】
: 他说没用吧，
: 违宪审查权在高院，马伯里诉麦迪逊经典案例确立下的。
: 他只是表个态而已。
|
|
|
L*******e
发帖数: 2202 | |
L*******e
发帖数: 2202 | 12 How did this happen? Why now?
Some time ago, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed two cases
challenging DOMA in district courts in the Second Circuit. This was
important because the Second Circuit (which covers New York, Connecticut and
Vermont) had no binding precedent on what kind of standard of review to use
for laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. While I have
argued that the Supreme Court has stated in Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v.
Texas that rational basis review is the appropriate standard, I have also
said that (a) Lawrence's standard is pretty unclear, (b) the issue in Romer
was very different than the issues posed by DOMA, and (c) the Supreme Court
never held explicitly that sexual orientation discrimination must get
rational basis review, rather the Court decided Romer and Lawrence this way:
regardless of what standard these statutes get, they do not even pass
rational basis review, so they are unconstitutional under any standard.
Since the Second Circuit never took a position on the appropriate standard,
the ACLU cases offered the Administration the opportunity to argue the
position it preferred. President Obama has decided that he believes that
because of a history of discrimination against gays and lesbians (as well as
other factors), heightened scrutiny is the best way forward.
What does heightened scrutiny mean?
In this case, heightened scrutiny likely means that a statute must further "
an important government interest in a way that is substantially related to
that interest." That is a tougher standard to meet than rational basis
review, which just requires a statute be rationally connected to a less
important interest. I say "likely" because the Administration's press
release simply referred to "some level of heightened scrutiny," which could
be this intermediate scrutiny or strict scrutiny. There is some precedent
for applying strict scrutiny -- furthering a compelling government interest
in a narrowly tailored way -- from some federal courts and state courts. But
, I believe intermediate scrutiny is a more likely result, as a number of
federal and state courts have found gays to be "quasi-suspect classes."
As a practical matter, this means that if the court adopts heightened
scrutiny, it will be harder for DOMA to withstand constitutional scrutiny.
Will the Second Circuit accept heightened scrutiny?
It may, but not necessarily. While the Second Circuit has never explicitly
set forth a standard of review for laws that discriminate on the basis of
sexual orientation, that circuit does not exist in a vacuum. When the
parties argue their positions, the court will consider those positions and
look at what other courts have done. This is called "persuasive precedent" -
- not binding, but persuasive.
Also, the Administration is not the final word on this matter. Given that
the Administration will now decline to defend DOMA, Congress now has the
right and opportunity to step into the shoes of the DOJ to defend
legislative enactments in court. This means that by the time briefing occurs
in this case, the court will have a wide range of options.
Is DOMA dead?
No, for a few reasons.
First, this is just the Administration stating its legal position. Even if
the Administration was the only party arguing in these Second Circuit cases,
the court does not have to adopt the Administration's opinion.
Second, the Administration will not be the only one defending DOMA. As you
can see from the press release, the DOJ has notified members of Congress of
the Administration's decision not to defend DOMA. Congressional leaders are
permitted to step into the shoes of the DOJ to defend duly enacted federal
laws passed by Congress. While Congress is split between majority Democrats
in the Senate and majority Republicans in the House, it is likely that
Republicans will seek to defend DOMA and argue before the Second Circuit
that rational basis review is the appropriate standard of review.
Third, even if the Second Circuit accepts heightened scrutiny and declares
DOMA unconstitutional, this will set up splits between the circuits on both
the constitutionality of DOMA and on the appropriate standard of review.
Therefore, these cases will likely go all the way up to the Supreme Court
before there is a definitive and final judicial ruling on the
constitutionality of DOMA. In fact, the Supreme Court may have to hear these
cases twice, remanding the case for review based on a clear standard of
review and, perhaps, hearing the cases again using that standard. |
f********g
发帖数: 770 | 13 It is great! But it is not the time to celebrate yet. |
g********d
发帖数: 4174 | 14 Good information.
and
use
have
.
Romer
Court
【在 L*******e 的大作中提到】
: How did this happen? Why now?
: Some time ago, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed two cases
: challenging DOMA in district courts in the Second Circuit. This was
: important because the Second Circuit (which covers New York, Connecticut and
: Vermont) had no binding precedent on what kind of standard of review to use
: for laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. While I have
: argued that the Supreme Court has stated in Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v.
: Texas that rational basis review is the appropriate standard, I have also
: said that (a) Lawrence's standard is pretty unclear, (b) the issue in Romer
: was very different than the issues posed by DOMA, and (c) the Supreme Court
|
r*********n
发帖数: 4553 | |
L*******e
发帖数: 2202 | 16 哎呀，马甲的那个帖子怎么不见了。
那个又是个没想通的。
你想不想结婚和有没有权利结婚完全是两回事。 |
e*******e
发帖数: 6165 | |
k*****e
发帖数: 22013 | 18 并不等于DOMA被推翻了
违宪审查权在高院，obama只是个人表态而已。
唯一的意义就是：到诉讼的时候obama不会为DOMA作辩护。
【在 e*******e 的大作中提到】
: 那Prop8还需要再讨论吗？
|
m******1
发帖数: 19713 | 19 即使DOMA已经被推翻了（现在一说推翻DOMA，基本上默指的就是DOMA第三条，其他部分
就别指望了），也和prop8是两回事，DOMA主要说的是联邦对同婚的承认，而prop8说的
是加州能不能同性结婚。假如prop8不推翻，即便联邦承认同婚，加州人仍不能结婚。
【在 k*****e 的大作中提到】
: 并不等于DOMA被推翻了
: 违宪审查权在高院，obama只是个人表态而已。
: 唯一的意义就是：到诉讼的时候obama不会为DOMA作辩护。
|
m******1
发帖数: 19713 | 20 哪个帖子啊？我想通了啊:J
【在 L*******e 的大作中提到】
: 哎呀，马甲的那个帖子怎么不见了。
: 那个又是个没想通的。
: 你想不想结婚和有没有权利结婚完全是两回事。
|
|
|
r**t
发帖数: 68 | 21 那联邦承认的好处是什么？可以少交税？和绿卡什么的有关系吗？
【在 m******1 的大作中提到】
: 即使DOMA已经被推翻了（现在一说推翻DOMA，基本上默指的就是DOMA第三条，其他部分
: 就别指望了），也和prop8是两回事，DOMA主要说的是联邦对同婚的承认，而prop8说的
: 是加州能不能同性结婚。假如prop8不推翻，即便联邦承认同婚，加州人仍不能结婚。
|
k*****e
发帖数: 22013 | 22 联邦承认，就和直人一样啦，直人能有的我们都能有。
【在 r**t 的大作中提到】
: 那联邦承认的好处是什么？可以少交税？和绿卡什么的有关系吗？
|
r**t
发帖数: 68 | 23 那如果在可以结婚的州结了婚然后跑到其他州去呢？
【在 k*****e 的大作中提到】
: 联邦承认，就和直人一样啦，直人能有的我们都能有。
|
k*****e
发帖数: 22013 | 24 我得查一查DOMA的原话是什么。
好像DOMA推翻并不等于联邦承认同性婚姻，
DOMA只是联邦承认同性婚姻的障碍而已。
得看你问题的条件是什么
如果是说联邦通过同性婚姻，那么所有州都必须承认。
那么就不存在不可以结婚的州。（这样的立法好像还很遥远）
如果在联邦级别判决所有州的同婚ban都违宪，
只是意味着所有州的障碍都被扫除，
那么通过同性婚姻与否还得再看各州的立法。
【在 r**t 的大作中提到】
: 那如果在可以结婚的州结了婚然后跑到其他州去呢？
|
r**t
发帖数: 68 | 25 谢谢解答
还是长路漫漫啊……
【在 k*****e 的大作中提到】
: 我得查一查DOMA的原话是什么。
: 好像DOMA推翻并不等于联邦承认同性婚姻，
: DOMA只是联邦承认同性婚姻的障碍而已。
: 得看你问题的条件是什么
: 如果是说联邦通过同性婚姻，那么所有州都必须承认。
: 那么就不存在不可以结婚的州。（这样的立法好像还很遥远）
: 如果在联邦级别判决所有州的同婚ban都违宪，
: 只是意味着所有州的障碍都被扫除，
: 那么通过同性婚姻与否还得再看各州的立法。
|
q*****m
发帖数: 3339 | |
q*****m
发帖数: 3339 | 27 what the news means financially:
http://tinyurl.com/news-bucks
qm |
m******1
发帖数: 19713 | 28 我觉得你不用考虑这些trivial的问题，联邦又没有修宪，假如没有DOMA的话，只要联
邦承认婚姻，就一定承认同性婚姻。DOMA推翻的那一天，也就是承认同性婚姻了。
【在 k*****e 的大作中提到】
: 我得查一查DOMA的原话是什么。
: 好像DOMA推翻并不等于联邦承认同性婚姻，
: DOMA只是联邦承认同性婚姻的障碍而已。
: 得看你问题的条件是什么
: 如果是说联邦通过同性婚姻，那么所有州都必须承认。
: 那么就不存在不可以结婚的州。（这样的立法好像还很遥远）
: 如果在联邦级别判决所有州的同婚ban都违宪，
: 只是意味着所有州的障碍都被扫除，
: 那么通过同性婚姻与否还得再看各州的立法。
|
X*******H
发帖数: 720 | 29 so excited at first place when I see the title on New York Times, after read
it, I realize it doesn't mean too much.
But at least now people know even the administration lawyers don't regard
DOMA constitutional, and Obama too. |
X*******H
发帖数: 720 | 30 英文说不溜
总之就是连obama政府都觉得的维护doma理屈词穷了
yeah |
