Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Breaking: DOMA ruled unconstitutional by yet another federal court

DOMA trials Windsor

By Jacob Combs

Today, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional in the case of Windsor v. USA, a suit brought by a New York woman who sought a refund for over $360,000 in federal estate taxes incurred upon the death of her legally wedded spouse.

Edie Windsor and Thea Spyer met in New York in 1963, and were together until Spyer’s death in 2009.  In 1993, when New York City first offered an option for same-sex couples to register as domestic partners, Windsor and Spyer signed up; in 2007, when Spyer’s health began to worsen, the two decided to marry in Canada.  In her will, Spyer left her estate to Edie Windsor, but because of DOMA, Windsor could not qualify for an unlimited marital deduction from the estate tax, and was required to pay $363,053 on Spyer’s estate.  In November of 2010, Windsor filed suit, seeking a refund of the estate tax money along with a declaration that DOMA’s Section 3 violated her equal protection rights under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  In her complaint, Windsor argued that sexual orientation should be subject to strict constitutional scrutiny.

In her opinion, Judge Barbara Jones, a Clinton appointee, briefly addresses BLAG’s argument that Windsor did not prove that her Canadian marriage was valid in New York in light of a 2006 decision by the New York Court of Appeals holding that the state’s constitution “does not compel recognition of marriages between members of the same sex” (Hernandez v. Robles), noting that “in light of subsequent state executive action and case law” (7), BLAG’s argument is unpersuasive.  In 2009, New York’s Governor, Attorney General and Comptroller all stated their belief that Windsor’s marriage was valid under state law, and every New York State appellate court to consider the issue after Hernandez has upheld the legitimacy of marriages performed in other jurisdictions.

Setting that argument aside, Judge Jones next considers BLAG’s assertion that Baker v. Nelson, a 40-year old case in which the U.S. Supreme Court summarily dismissed a suit brought by a gay couple in Minnesota seeking full marriage rights, precludes any lower court from considering cases pertaining to marriage equality.  This is an argument that BLAG has used repeatedly and which is starting to wear thin given the increasing number of courts who are thoroughly unconvinced by it.  As Judge Jones writes, “the case before the Court does not present the same issue as that presented in Baker” (10), since Baker addressed an inherent constitutional right to marriage, whereas the couples in Windsor and the other DOMA trials are duly married under their respective states’ laws.

In perhaps the most intriguing section of her opinion (at least for court watchers), Judge Jones addresses the proper standard of review that should be accorded to Edie Windsor’s complaint.  Windsor, of course, argued that the court should apply strict scrutiny (the highest level) to her case, arguing that gays and lesbians exhibit all of the qualifications necessary to be ruled a suspect class meriting such exacting review.  Citing the Supreme Court cases of Thomasson v. Perry and City of Cleburne, however, Judge Jones writes that “‘respect for the separation of powers’ should make courts reluctant to establish new suspect classes.”  Significantly, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, under whose jurisdiction the Southern District of New York falls, has not ruled that only rational basis scrutiny (the lowest level) should be applied to sexual orientation.  Nevertheless, in her opinion, Jones opts not to address the issue of heightened scrutiny, since the issue before her, she writes, “may be disposed of under a rational basis review.”

Judge Jones’s scrutiny decision may undoubtedly frustrate those of us who follow LGBT civil rights cases across the country, and rightly so–gays and lesbians do indeed meet the requirements necessary to be classified as a suspect class, and heightened or strict scrutiny would be a major boon to our side in future court cases.  Nevertheless, Judge Jones is following a well-estbalished tradition in the judicial system of incremental, restrained opinions.  As frustrating as that is, she is correct to do so.  Barring a higher court determination ruling otherwise, Judge Jones has decided to use the most liberal and least restrictive form of constitutional scrutiny, and finds that even under that classification, DOMA is still irreconcilable with any legitimate governmental interest.

In making this determination, Judge Jones explicitly cites the recent opinion by the First Circuit upholding a Massachusetts court’s decision to strike DOMA down.  Like the First Circuit, she cites the Supreme Court’s landmark gay rights case Lawrence v. Texas to argue that, even within the same frame of rational basis scrutiny, there are two types of laws, “‘laws such as economic or tax legislation that are scrutinized under rational basis review, which normally pass constitutional muster,’ and ‘laws that exhibit a desire to harm a politically unpopular group,’ which receive ‘a more searching form of rational basis review under the Equal Protection Clause.'”

In her opinion, Judge Jones demolishes the various reasons proposed by BLAG for why DOMA should be ruled constitutional, and while her reasoning is thorough and persuasive, I  will avoid going into it in detail here since other courts have made similarly effective determinations to the same effect.  What is most significant is that DOMA has now been ruled unconstitutional by a federal appellate court and several district courts, and BLAG’s exceedingly unpersuasive arguments in support of the law have been dismissed again and again. Because of the simple fact that it was the first case to strike DOMA down, it appears extremely likely that Gill (the case decided by the First Circuit earlier this week) will be the first DOMA case to reach the Supreme Court.  When it does, though, opinions from across the U.S. like Judge Jones’s will no doubt steer the Supreme Court towards a definitive ruling that DOMA is not, and never was, a constitutional law.

75 Comments

  • 1. MightyAcorn  |  June 6, 2012 at 2:53 pm

    Awesomesauce! I'd say a momentum thing is happening!

  • 2. DaveP  |  June 6, 2012 at 2:54 pm

    Wow! The momentum we are seeing lately is really astounding.

  • 3. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  June 6, 2012 at 3:00 pm

    Damn Activist Judges!!!
    God bless em :-)

  • 4. Steve  |  June 6, 2012 at 3:02 pm

    Suck it BLAG

  • 5. Steve  |  June 6, 2012 at 3:08 pm

    The court used the exact same rational basis plus analysis as in the Prop 8 case, citing the same three cases that established that standard

  • 6. Glen  |  June 6, 2012 at 3:12 pm

    I can't wait till DOMA is ruled unconstitutional yet AGAIN next week.

    It seems at least every other week some court is ruling it unconstitutional. :-P

  • 7. Glen  |  June 6, 2012 at 3:14 pm

    P.S. I'm being facetious, I have no idea if there are any pending cases where a ruling is imminent. It just seems like I keep hearing this story and I can no longer tell if it's the same court ruling or a new one.

  • 8. B&E  |  June 6, 2012 at 3:18 pm

    I just read the brief. This is freaking awesome news. Way to go NY!

  • 9. nightshayde  |  June 6, 2012 at 3:18 pm

    How many is that, now? Would the SCOTUS be willing to take on the same thing over and over and over again — or can they just (hopefully) affirm one District Court ruling, say that Article 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional, and thus end the other cases with one ruling?

  • 10. Kathleen  |  June 6, 2012 at 3:20 pm

    There are plenty more waiting in the wings. Pedersen comes to mind. It seems overdue.

  • 11. Sammy  |  June 6, 2012 at 3:25 pm

    In addition to this good news Mr. Karger strikes NOM again!
    Now California will be investigating NOM's breach of campaign finance laws! Good day!
    http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2012/06/california-t….

  • 12. DaveP  |  June 6, 2012 at 3:25 pm

    Didn't I read recently that there were a whopping two dozen cases currently pending against DOMA? And if my calculations are correct, does this latest one make us six wins out of six?

  • 13. Sammy  |  June 6, 2012 at 3:26 pm

    http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2012/06/california-t

  • 14. David Henderson  |  June 6, 2012 at 3:26 pm

    I'm wondering about this sentence:

    "The Court declares that section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, 1 U.S.C. s. 7, is unconstitutional as applied to Plaintiff."

    Does "as applied" mean that this particular case (presuming for the moment that any possible appeal comes to the same conclusion) would only apply to Edith Windsor, and not affect any other person similarly situated?

  • 15. jpmassar  |  June 6, 2012 at 3:30 pm

    I guess it was an "as applied" challenge, as opposed to a facial challenge, so yeah.

  • 16. Matt  |  June 6, 2012 at 3:30 pm

    All the district court rulings against DOMA have had this caveat, so I wouldn't read too much into it. I have always found it curious, though.

  • 17. Steve  |  June 6, 2012 at 3:40 pm

    Mhh, why does "each party bear its own costs"? Doesn't the loser usually pay?

  • 18. Kathleen  |  June 6, 2012 at 3:40 pm

    As JP said, this was an "as applied" challenge. So, yes, technically it only applies to Edie Windsor and her tax issues. This has some procedural implications, but not to worry. When the flood of DOMA cases reaches SCOTUS, the decision will implicate DOMA Sect 3 across the country.

  • 19. Kathleen  |  June 6, 2012 at 3:41 pm

    Yes SCOTUS can take a single case that will decide all of them, or consolidate all the DOMA Sect 3 cases into one.

  • 20. Sam  |  June 6, 2012 at 3:42 pm

    On the one hand this is really exciting and awesome; on the other hand, this is another of the "reluctant" decisions striking down DOMA without heightened scrutiny and accepting that anti-gay marriage laws on the state level are permissible. Mark my words, this sentence will be quoted endlessly by BLAG et al: "The states may choose, through their legislative or constitutional processes, to preserve traditional marriage or to redefine it." (p. 24).

    I guess what this shows is that all even mildly fair-minded judges, who have to go through arguments rationally and dealing with the facts, can see that DOMA is unconstitutional…but I worry that these decisions are quite purposefully closing us off from the broader, Judge Walker-like freedom to marry claims.

  • 21. Ann_S  |  June 6, 2012 at 3:48 pm

    The loser pays if there is a contract provision requiring that (in a breach of contract case) or in certain other circumstances. In most circumstances each party pays their own costs.

  • 22. David Henderson  |  June 6, 2012 at 3:51 pm

    That sentence is dicta (commentary) because it is about an issue that is not before the court to decide. Courts can only decide issues that are raised by the parties (or maybe by amici?), or underlying issues that must be decided in order to reach a decision on those issues. They can comment on anything else, but those other comments have no power.

  • 23. Glen  |  June 6, 2012 at 3:54 pm

    I think that was just a matter-of-fact statement by them. It wasn't commenting on the Constitutionality of that reality.

    That wasn't the question they were ruling on.

  • 24. Matt  |  June 6, 2012 at 3:56 pm

    It seems more like a statement of fact, than anything. Up to this point, states have made one of those two choices. The judge doesn't comment on whether such choices are valid constitutionally or not.

    It's good to have narrow, to the point, rulings.

  • 25. Glen  |  June 6, 2012 at 3:58 pm

    When this does reach SCOTUS, it will be interesting to see them try to find a way to overturn the opinions of an unending string of Federal and Appeals court judges.

    Of course they won't be able to, and at least section 3 of DOMA will be struck down.

    And hear this…. The judges who DO dissent and claim that DOMA is constitutional, those will in absolute fact, BE the real activist judges on the Supreme Court. The one's who want to ignore the law (the Constitution) to advance their far right conservative ideological agenda.

  • 26. Leo  |  June 6, 2012 at 4:00 pm

    Depends how you count. I understand that there have been a number of unsuccessful DOMA challenges in the past. But considering only the recent wave of DOMA challenges, there's been one that failed so far (AFAIK): Lui v. Holder. The judge there did not conduct any independent analysis. He ruled that Adams v. Howerton was binding precedent and it's up to en banc Ninth Circuit to overturn it. (Both Adams and Lui were immigration-related.) The plaintiffs at first appealed but then withdrew the appeal.

  • 27. Sam  |  June 6, 2012 at 4:03 pm

    I agree that it's dicta, but it's clear that this is the judge's personal view on the constitutionality of those bans–see also the discussion on pages 18 and 19 where she endorses Justice O'Connor's concurrence in Lawrence that tradition is (or could be) a sufficient reason for a state to ban gay marriage.

  • 28. Glen  |  June 6, 2012 at 4:04 pm

    2012 is turning out to be as remarkable a year for same-gender marriage equality as predicted, if not more so.

    Poor NOM has got to be feeling a bit battered and bruised.

    But hey, at least they did show that at least in 2012 they can still rely on the prejudice and bigotry of Southern State voters.

  • 29. Glen  |  June 6, 2012 at 4:10 pm

    BLAG sure does have their hands full.

    Poor NOM's dream litigator to defend DOMA is having a hell of a time trying to convince any courts that it is constitutional.

    Can you just IMAGINE what they would be saying if the Obama justice department had continued to defend DOMA? They would be all up in arms at how terrible a defense the Justice Department is putting on, and how they are purposely trying to throw the case.

    Obama's a pretty smart guy. They knew pretty quickly that DOMA was a big unconstitutional turd, and they didn't want to have anything to do with trying to defend it. Plus they probably realized they would get skewered by the supporters of DOMA for not winning in court.

  • 30. DaveP  |  June 6, 2012 at 4:32 pm

    I'm picturing Maggie and Brian sitting in the run-down lobby of a cheap motel, waiting to check out, remembering the times when they had the money to stay at the Hyatt, and looking outside at the rent-a-wreck that has replaced that wonderful big shiny RV they used to tool around in… Brian looking through the local 'help wanted' ads while Maggie gets further into her third martini of the morning, as she looks up at Brian and wistfully remarks "We'll always have North Carolina, won't we, Brian?" Brian buries his face in the newspaper and mumbles something under his breath…

  • 31. Ann_S  |  June 6, 2012 at 4:39 pm

    Good one, Dave!

  • 32. Glen  |  June 6, 2012 at 4:48 pm

    LOL.

    That literally made me laugh out loud.

  • 33. Mtn Bill  |  June 6, 2012 at 4:50 pm

    This decision can be appealed to the 2nd Circuit Court?

  • 34. Sagesse  |  June 6, 2012 at 5:13 pm

    And if DOMA continues to be ruled unconstitutional by the appeals courts, watch for movement on the Respect for Marriage Act.

  • 35. Kathleen  |  June 6, 2012 at 5:41 pm

    Yes.

  • 36. Str8ForEquality  |  June 6, 2012 at 6:14 pm

    A minor matter, but I have a question about the amount of the judgement. It says Windsor paid $363,053 taxes on the estate, but the judge awarded $353,053 (plus interest, etc.). What about the other $10,000?

  • 37. DaveP  |  June 6, 2012 at 6:27 pm

    Ah, this brings up an issue again – there was the question recently here in California of whether we should try to repeal Prop 8 at the ballot in 2012 or let the trial continue and let the courts decide. Repeal at the ballot may have been faster, which would be great for Californians who desired to marry soon, but it would have been costly, and it would have left the legal question unanswered and would have allowed the possibility of another prop 8 appearing on a California ballot in the future.

    So what about DOMA and the respect for Marriage Act? It seems like a similar question. Better to let the courts have their say, because it would be a more definitive answer, even if it takes longer? Or would it be better if the Respect For Marriage Act were passed, especially if that were to happen soon?

  • 38. Cat  |  June 6, 2012 at 7:02 pm

    Great! I'm actually glad that 'only' rational basis review was applied, and DOMA still failed. Especially the argument that it does not protect opposite-sex marriages is a powerful one, because it is so often argued by conservatives that allowing same-sex couples to marry will somehow harm 'traditional' marriage.

  • 39. John_B_in_DC  |  June 6, 2012 at 7:32 pm

    Heck, if this keeps up the supreme court won't have to rule on DOMA at all. They can just let all the lower courts find it unconstitutional, and decline to take the cases on appeal.

  • 40. Paul  |  June 6, 2012 at 7:55 pm

    The most encouraging part of this development is that each ruling strikes down DOMA under a slightly different legal argument. Each separate ruling addresses DOMA from a somewhay different angle. To me, that just demonstrates how many flaws there are in this law, which would seem to make it increasingly difficult to uphold the law. Nice!

  • 41. Kathleen  |  June 6, 2012 at 8:05 pm

    Oh, well noticed! I don't know what the answer is, unless it's just a typo. The original complaint cites the $363K figure.

  • 42. Jake  |  June 6, 2012 at 10:27 pm

    Don't mean to sound negative, but the respect for marriage act is years away from happening–many many years. DOMA will die in the courts before 60 US Senators vote to repeal it, especially section 2. ENDA should be our focus in Congress.

  • 43. Steve  |  June 6, 2012 at 11:42 pm

    Reading it now…one minor error (which the anti-SSM side consistently states in their attempts to foist lies on the public):

    p. 4 "Given the Executive Branch's decision not to enforce DOMA…"

    DOMA is still being *enforced*, it's just not being *defended in court* by the DoJ.

  • 44. Steve  |  June 7, 2012 at 3:43 am

    Yeah, in some ways failing even rational basis is far worse. It's really very hard for a law to not pass that standard, so it just underscores how silly DOMA is

  • 45. Bill S.  |  June 7, 2012 at 3:57 am

    This is better anyway because it gives us useful precedent.

  • 46. Bill S.  |  June 7, 2012 at 3:59 am

    The downside though is that the Supreme Court never declares gays to be a suspect class (as they *clearly* are, and I'm speaking 100% objectively here). Bans on same-sex marriage are constitutional under rational basis and it'd be a toss-up under intermediate scrutiny. I wouldn't want to go into a federal "right to marry" case without having established beforehand that gays constitute a suspect class

  • 47. Bill S.  |  June 7, 2012 at 4:01 am

    This would take far too long and we need a definitive national resolution to this question of law. The Supreme Court will take Gill v. OPM and dispense with this issue. Otherwise you'd also have to get the DC Circuit and 8th Circuit involved, among other circuits when other states legalize same-sex marriage (Like the 7th Circuit for Illinois, the 4th for Maryland, and the 3rd for New Jersey).

  • 48. Greg Phillips  |  June 7, 2012 at 6:02 am

    Great stuff!

    MORE GOOD NEWS: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/06/07danish-parlia

    DENMARK'S PARLIAMENT HAS PASSED A MARRIAGE EQUALITY LAW 85 to 24!

    Why wasn't this being tracked? :P

  • 49. Greg Phillips  |  June 7, 2012 at 6:03 am

    Fixed link: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/06/07/danish-parli

    As for the story here: DOMA sure seems to be coming burning down…

  • 50. Lymis  |  June 7, 2012 at 7:01 am

    This raises what is for me a very significant issue.

    The ruling not only declares DOMA unconstitutional, but also, because being, unconstitutional, it has always been invalid, directs as redress, refunding the taxes that she had to pay that she should not have had to pay if it had not been in place.

    Does that mean, if this is upheld and applied nationally to those of us with valid state marriages, that we will be allowed to refile things like our federal income taxes and get back the money we should not have had to pay if our marriage was recognized? For us, that's over 5 grand this year alone.

  • 51. MFargo  |  June 7, 2012 at 7:21 am

    in this week's New Yorker
    http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/201

  • 52. Larry  |  June 7, 2012 at 8:20 am

    There's a 3 year limit on filing amended returns, but aside from that I don't see why it wouldn't work. That being said, it might vary. When NY passed marriage equality, they explicitly said that the law wasn't retroactive, so the earliest year people could claim joint status was 2011 even if they were married earlier somewhere else.

  • 53. DaveP  |  June 7, 2012 at 8:25 am

    Wow, this is shaping up to be quite a week!

  • 54. Bill S.  |  June 7, 2012 at 8:27 am

    In regards to taxes, I think you would have had to file an amended tax return in addition to your "correctly filed" taxes (i.e. saying you are *not* filing as married) in order to be re-imbursed, and then only up to (I believe) 3 years (double-check with a tax attorney).

    Normally you cannot sue a state or the United States of America because they are sovereign entities (see Amendment XI). In order to receive redress from having your rights violated by the government, you must sue the actual governmental agent in his/her individual capacity who is enforcing the unconstitutional law against you (called the Ex Parte Young doctrine). But by doing this, you can only receive prospective relief, meaning the court can only guarantee that this government agent, in the future, will not enforce the law against you. But anything that happened in the past cannot be redressed.

    However, it seems that in Windsor v. United States of America, the United States has voluntarily waived its right to sovereign immunity as it is being sued directly and the judge is awarding plaintiff on taxes she was forced to pay years ago. I don't know what this means for other same-sex married couples, but I would guess that, this being an as-applied challenge (affecting only Edie Windsor) and with the likelihood the Supreme Court will strike down DOMA Sec. 3 facially in the Gill case (using Ex Parte Young), makes it unlikely for same-sex couples to be able to claim back taxes from years in the past.

    Again, check with a tax attorney and a civil rights attorney.

  • 55. Mackenzie  |  June 7, 2012 at 8:29 am

    The Windsor case was the first one I remember reading about when these cases against DOMA started coming out. To me it is also one of the most blatantly discriminatory examples of how DOMA hurts gay couples. For me this was a big victory for our side (more because I personally wanted to see her win)! I always use this case as an easy example when talking to friends who don't even know what DOMA is. Still really sad how many people don't have a clue that our Fed gov bans gay marriage, and just how much it keep gay married couples from doing. These cases help bring light to the situation for millions of Americans who have no idea just how many ways their gay friends and family members are being discriminated against.

  • 56. Steve  |  June 7, 2012 at 8:37 am

    Section 2 isn't that important anyways. There is a public policy exception to the Full Faith and Credit clause that allows states to ignore out of state same-marriages in any case. So doing away with Section 2 won't have an immediate effect.

  • 57. New  |  June 7, 2012 at 8:52 am

    I have much respect and admiration for this lady who spoke openly about her losses in life and the discrimination she went through. She is one of my LGBT's hero. I hope Windsor is getting every penny back, and most important, she will claim back the dignity it was stolen from her and from all of us LGBT's..

  • 58. Lymis  |  June 7, 2012 at 9:09 am

    I didn't read it that way. In fact, if that is her opinion, she sure expressed in a very odd way.

    Remember, that under rational basis review, under most circumstances, ANY rational connection between a legitimate government interest and the law in question may be enough to validate the law.

    So, in theory, to overturn a law as unconstitutional under rational basis, you have to shoot down every possible rationale. Given that, it's much stronger to say "whether or not there is a valid government interest in the subject, this law doesn't have anything to do with forwarding it" than it is to make the outright claim that there is no government interest in the first place.

    In a broader, philosophical argument on principle, the reverse is true – sweeping principled claims like "the government has no business maintaining tradition for its own sake, especially if citizens are hurt by it."
    In a ruling like this, though, it's far more powerful to make the case that, regardless of motivations, this law doesn't do what people claim it does.

    It may or may not be true that the government has an interest in making sure people eat their vegetables, but you don't even have to address that question if the law requires people to paint their houses blue.

    Maintaining or encouraging heterosexual marriages may or may not be a legitimate government interest, but as her analysis shows, DOMA doesn't have anything to do with straight marriage one way or the other, so she doesn't even have to address the merits of the claim that the government has an interest in straight marriages.

  • 59. Lymis  |  June 7, 2012 at 9:10 am

    When does the BLAG funding and mandate run out? They were only approved for the one case with a budget they've long since blown through.

  • 60. mtn bill  |  June 7, 2012 at 9:47 am

    My question is if art 3 of DOMA is declared unconstitutional, will the Feds recognize domestic partnerships or civil unions which are nearly the equivalent of marriage, or will the Feds take a strict stance that its marriage or nothing else in allowing Fed benefits?

  • 61. David Henderson  |  June 7, 2012 at 10:28 am

    Since the benefits are for "married" couples, "marriages", or "spouses", I think that would mean that "civilly unionized" or "domestically partnered" people would not qualify.

  • 62. Carpool Cookie  |  June 7, 2012 at 10:48 am

    " What about the other $10,000? "

    Maybe there's yet ANOTHER "gay tax" on the books we need to address ? ? ?

  • 63. Fred  |  June 7, 2012 at 11:10 am

    If that were the case, I think that the Fed would have recognized heterosexual dp's and civil unions long ago.

  • 64. Kathleen  |  June 7, 2012 at 11:19 am

    The formal judgment, issued today by the Clerk of the Court under direction of the Judge, says the judgment is for $363,053. So I'm inclined to think this is a typo in the opinion. http://www.scribd.com/doc/96310849/94

  • 65. Kathleen  |  June 7, 2012 at 11:28 am

    Edie and Thea were married somewhere else prior to 2011 (Canada in 2007). I think the restrictions would be the 3-year limit and that you were considered married by your state for the years you're filing In fact, part of the analysis in this case is to determine if Edie and Thea were considered married by NY at the time Thea died in 2009. (not a tax attorney, so this obviously isn't legal advice!).

  • 66. MFargo  |  June 7, 2012 at 11:44 am

    Well, I'm still waiting on those donor lists. Did they leave them at the Hyatt?

  • 67. Ray in Sacramento  |  June 7, 2012 at 2:13 pm

    I sent an e-mail to Congressman Dan Lungren in my district and said to quit wasting tax payer money on BLAG to defend DOMA when it's becomming more obvious with every court decision that DOMA is unconstitutional. I'm sure it will end up in File 13 (aka circular file).

  • 68. Malisa  |  June 7, 2012 at 2:22 pm

    I'll be waiting for the update on this next week.<img src=http://www.mobilediscount.info/ikea/sso.jpg> <img src=http://www.mobilediscount.info/xbox/xss.jpg>

  • 69. Glen  |  June 7, 2012 at 4:32 pm

    Gay people a suspect class?

    Do gay people have a history of being unfairly discriminated against?

    Oh wait… they do. Hell yeah that's a suspect class. Courts should apply that standard when examining any law that targets the rights of gay citizens.

  • 70. Prop 8 Trial Tracker &raq&hellip  |  June 20, 2012 at 10:01 am

    […] in the Southern District of New York just struck down DOMA as unconstitutional in another case, Windsor v. OPM, and an appeal has been filed by the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group and by the Justice Department, […]

  • 71. Prop 8 Trial Tracker &raq&hellip  |  July 16, 2012 at 9:39 am

    […] case has been decided at the district court level, where Section 3 of DOMA was struck down as unconstitutional. It is on appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Like the Justice […]

  • 72. Prop 8 Trial Tracker &raq&hellip  |  July 16, 2012 at 11:40 am

    […] stage, Windsor is on appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, since the district court judge rendered its decision striking down Section 3 as unconstitutional. At the district court level, the judge wrote that the case […]

  • 73. Prop 8 Trial Tracker &raq&hellip  |  December 13, 2012 at 5:34 pm

    […] the Justice Department has changed its position on the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA. The lower court struck that law down as unconstitutional, though under reasoning that differed from the Justice Department’s […]

  • 74. cougar dating sites  |  April 16, 2014 at 10:03 pm

    Hey there! Would you mind if I share your blog with my facebook group?
    There’s a lot of people that I think would really
    ejoy your content. Please let mee know. Many thanks

    Feell free to surf to my website … cougar dating sites

  • 75. Migre.Me  |  April 29, 2014 at 2:27 am

    I read this piece of writing fully about the resemblance of most recent and previous technologies, it’s awesome
    article.

Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!