Speak Out: Appeals Court Rules Defense of Marriage Act Unconstitutional

What do you think of the court's ruling?

A federal appeals court in Boston ruled Thursday that the Defense of Marriage Act — which defines marriage as between one man and one woman — is unconstitutional because it denies benefits to same-sex couples that heterosexual couples receive.

The justices stayed the ruling pending an anticipated decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on this case or a similar case. The ruling applies to four New England states and Puerto Rico, which are covered by the circuit court’s jurisdiction, Bloomberg reported.

According to the Huffington Post: "The court didn't rule on the law's more politically combustible provision, which said states without same-sex marriage cannot be forced to recognize gay unions performed in states where it's legal. It also wasn't asked to address whether gay couples have a constitutional right to marry."

The Wall Street Journal noted that the judge who authored the unanimous decision was appointed by President George H.W. Bush. The other two judges on the panel were appointed by former presidents Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan.

Speak out: What do you think about the federal appeals court ruling the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional?

Jason Spencer June 03, 2012 at 06:32 AM
I respect that. Before coming to Patch, I spent more than six years in the conservative core of South Carolina. I've developed great relationships with those on the far right and far left — I just wouldn't necessarily invite them all over for dinner the same night, you know? :)
Jason Spencer June 03, 2012 at 06:42 AM
I'll admit, I have not done my job at filling out my bio per Patch standards. Yet. When I think of it, I tend to dwell on how I want to describe certain things. But to get to your point: I'm very cautious in disclosing any of my personal political beliefs — aside from transparency. Openness in government is the one thing that I feel strongly about that I feel I can legitimately take a public position on as a journalist. And both parties (in Virginia) do pretty terrible at it. In the last state I covered, South Carolina, Republicans tended to do OK with it — some more than others. But since Citizens United... that's just made things get worse in the openness/honesty/disclosure world.
Kenn Bing June 05, 2012 at 09:38 AM
Jason Spencer; Thank you for your reply.
Paul June 06, 2012 at 03:43 PM
It is interesting that they did not rule on the part about recognizing other states marriages. That one seems pretty clear cut to me. Full faith and credit. Done. A contract entered in one state is binding everywhere. Without that, we can just go back to the articles of confederation.
T-Bird June 07, 2012 at 03:20 PM
Kenn, when a reporter states his "position" on a subject, it ceases to be news and becomes an opinion piece. this has nothingto do with transparancy, but correct journalism, and not the infotainment that passes for news on TV and in most print. That is what makes Patch good. It's not some political rag with an agenda. If you want a target, or a cheerleader, go somewhere else.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something