Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the Ninth Circuit in an order Wednesday seems to have declared the half of DOMA that declares that a same-sex marriage cannot be a marriage under federal law or for purposes of granting federal benefits unconstitutional, a violation of the equal protection component of the due process guarantee of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
In sum, to the extent that the application of DOMA serves to preclude the provision of health insurance coverage to a same-sex spouse of a legally married federal employee because of the employee's and his or her spouse's sex or sexual orientation, DOMA, as applied, contravenes the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and is therefore unconstitutional.
That's about as flat a declaration of the unconstitutionality of that part of DOMA as one can expect to see come from a court. (Note that it places no reliance on the fact that the employee in question was an employee of a federal court, as opposed to of the federal government in general.
Rightardia is suprised that Ninth Amendment issues were not addressed in the ruling. The federal government has no constitutional basis for regulating marraige. We laugh when conservatives say they are strict constructionist and pass such a stupid law that has no chance of passing constitutional muster.
source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7054773
Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/IGiu
Netcraft rank: 5288 http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://rightardia.blogspot.com
In sum, to the extent that the application of DOMA serves to preclude the provision of health insurance coverage to a same-sex spouse of a legally married federal employee because of the employee's and his or her spouse's sex or sexual orientation, DOMA, as applied, contravenes the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and is therefore unconstitutional.
That's about as flat a declaration of the unconstitutionality of that part of DOMA as one can expect to see come from a court. (Note that it places no reliance on the fact that the employee in question was an employee of a federal court, as opposed to of the federal government in general.
Rightardia is suprised that Ninth Amendment issues were not addressed in the ruling. The federal government has no constitutional basis for regulating marraige. We laugh when conservatives say they are strict constructionist and pass such a stupid law that has no chance of passing constitutional muster.
source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7054773
Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/IGiu
Netcraft rank: 5288 http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://rightardia.blogspot.com
Powered by ScribeFire.
No comments:
Post a Comment