START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x

House Lawyers Appeal DOMA Ruling

House Lawyers Appeal DOMA Ruling

 

Lawyers acting on behalf of the U.S. House have filed to appeal a federal judge’s ruling, handed down last week, that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional.

Via The Hill:

House GOP leaders are appealing a federal court’s decision on Thursday that found a section of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to be unconstitutional.

The action by the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, which moved on behalf of GOP leaders, will send the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which earlier this month ruled against a ban on gay marriage in California.

Democrats are not supporting the appeal. “The Democratic leader and the Democratic whip decline to support the filing of this notice of appeal,” the notice read.

U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey S. White ruled that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which bans federal recognition of same-sex marriage, violates the U.S. Constitution.

The case to be appealed, known as Golinski v. United States, involves Karen Golinski, a federal court employee who under DOMA has been denied spousal health coverage for her wife.

Judge White, in handing down his decision last week, wrote: “the Court finds that DOMA, as applied to Ms. Golinski, violates her right to equal protection of the law under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution by, without substantial justification or rational basis, refusing to recognize her lawful marriage to prevent provision of health insurance coverage to her spouse.”

The House leadership has been repeatedly criticized for funding the legal defense of DOMA.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi wrote to House Speaker John Boehner again last week, saying that no matter how much Boehner may claim the defense of DOMA to be a bi-partisan issue Democratic lawmakers do not support defending the Defense of Marriage Act, and that any money spent on defending DOMA is a waste.

Last year Speaker Boehner tripled the amount the House can spend on defending the Defense of Marriage Act, now totaling $1.5m — the latest contracts show there is, however, no cap on how much the House can spend, meaning that it is possible further funds could be allocated toward DOMA court battles.

As mentioned above, this case now goes before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The 9th Circuit most recently ruled Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional, but how they will deal with this case will be of keen interest to both supporters and opponents of marriage equality alike.

 

Related Reading:

DOJ Will Not Defend Anti-Gay Block on Military Benefits

SPLC Challenges DOMA On Behalf of Disabled Lesbian Vet

Domestic Partners Join DOMA Health Care Lawsuit

 

Read more: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Image used under the Creative Commons Attribution License with thanks to Made Underground.

have you shared this story yet?

some of the best people we know are doing it

38 comments

+ add your own
10:36PM PDT on Mar 18, 2012

Of no material relevance to the facts that:

It is the role of Courts, not to do the "will of the people," but that of the Law;

DOMA violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution: and,

Federal Courts have no standing to either enforce or set aside a State decision that does not violate the US Constitution.

10:37AM PST on Mar 5, 2012

Even the US Supreme Court only agrees with the 9th circuit court of appeals. Here is an excert of what I am talking about taken from the latimes:

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/18/local/la-me-ninth-circuit-scorecard-20110718

The Supreme Court reversed or vacated 19 of the 26 decisions it looked at from the 9th Circuit this judicial term, issuing especially pointed critiques of the court's handling of cases involving prisoners' rights and death row reprieves.

Although the proportion of reversals was relatively in line with past years and other appellate circuits across the country, the 9th Circuit was often out of step even with the high court's liberal justices, who joined with the conservatives in 12 unanimous rulings.

In their reversals, the justices often expressed impatience with what they see as stubborn refusal by the lower court to follow Supreme Court precedent. One of the circuit's most renowned liberals, Judge Stephen Reinhardt, was seen by judicial analysts as the main target of the justices' pique.

12:03AM PST on Mar 5, 2012

To repeat, you said the below:

"Some one was saying that we should not listen to the majority and just let a judge rule? What a great attitude that is in a democracy. We already have seen the benefits of a few overruling the majority with the Obamacare and sweet Pelosi telling the American people we will not know what is in it until it is passed. It was passed by a partisan Democratic vote and now even democrats are saying "Woa" wait we did not know that was in there or that it was going to be more expensive. The people of California voted in a large majority to pass Prop. 8 and it should go to the US Supreme court not the ultra liberal 9th court of appeals. The 9th is a court likes to make laws instead of judging them. Time we just disbanded that court and elected new justices to fill the seats. About the only way the voice of the people will ever get fully understood."

It's here for all to see.

10:49PM PST on Mar 4, 2012

Talk about deflection, I never said what you are saying at all and it is right in front of you. I am a constitutionalist and I teach it to Boy Scouts in my District. That judge needs to be repremanded and Kagen needs to recuse herself.

The Obama Care will be deemed unconstitutional due to trying to make people pay for a federal insurance, under the commerce clause it will not fly.

7:09PM PST on Mar 4, 2012

As for Kegan, we'll address that after Thomas recuses himself.

In the meantime, that's just an attempt at deflection by misdirection, so as to continue to evade the fact that you proposed that the Constitutions of both the US and the State of CA should be ignored whenever you don't agree with a Judicial decision.

6:38PM PST on Mar 4, 2012

I am still standing by my statement that the judge was being biased and should have recused himself from the bench. If he had any honor he would have done so with not one person questioning his decision. But no he had to stir a controversy.

As the people that keep in touch know very well it is Elena Kagan that is struggling with her decision on Obamacare that comes before the Supreme Court, I believe in April, not sure of the date.

2:05PM PST on Mar 4, 2012

Bill R. said "We are also seeing a SCJUSTIC refusing to date from recusing ..."

Sounds like a description of Clarence Thomas.

2:02PM PST on Mar 4, 2012

Having trouble reading your own posts? You sadi "Some one was saying that we should not listen to the majority and just let a judge rule? What a great attitude that is in a democracy. We already have seen the benefits of a few overruling the majority with the Obamacare and sweet Pelosi telling the American people we will not know what is in it until it is passed. It was passed by a partisan Democratic vote and now even democrats are saying "Woa" wait we did not know that was in there or that it was going to be more expensive. The people of California voted in a large majority to pass Prop. 8 and it should go to the US Supreme court not the ultra liberal 9th court of appeals. The 9th is a court likes to make laws instead of judging them. Time we just disbanded that court and elected new justices to fill the seats. About the only way the voice of the people will ever get fully understood."

That is all about denying the standing of Courts, and a failure to distinguish between State and Federal matters.

1:04PM PST on Mar 4, 2012

What I said and you must have turned off your brain prior to reading it, is that a judge that has a bias should have recused himself from hearing the complaint. Very simple, not too difficult to understand.

We are also seeing a SCJUSTIC refusing to date from recusing herself from a case in which she helped write the bill. If she continues she should be impeached. It would seem to the average person that a judge who helped write a bill would not have prejudice in favor of it.

1:25AM PST on Mar 4, 2012

Rex said "It is one reason scientists are concluding conservatives to be socially inferior to liberals. They use their emotions more than their brains to come to conclusions."

Hence the appellation "paleoconservatives" to describe today's right-wingnuts.

add your comment



Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Care2 - Be Extraordinary - Start a Care2 Petition
ads keep care2 free
CONTACT THE EDITORS

Recent Comments from Causes

What is a "pro-abortion" woman? Or man, for that matter? I have never met anyone, in 68 years of my…

The word "whoredom" was used wrongly. Rape victims aren't forced to be whores or whores at all; they're…

Eric and Joey, the Dallas Police and firefighters all did the right thing in rescuing these two tiny…

meet our writers

Steve Williams Steve Williams is a passionate supporter of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans (LGBT) rights, human... more
ads keep care2 free

more from causes

Animal Welfare

Causes Canada

Causes UK

Children

Civil Rights

Education

Endangered Wildlife

Environment & Wildlife

Global Development

Global Warming

Health Policy

Human Rights

LGBT rights

Politics

Real Food

Trailblazers For Good

Women's Rights




Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.