Feminist Philosophers

News feminist philosophers can use

Defence of Marriage Act Unconstitutional July 9, 2010

Filed under: glbt — Jender @ 1:29 pm

From the Courage Campaign:

We won a major court victory for LGBT equality on Thursday. A federal judge in Massachusetts ruled that part of the notorious “Defense of Marriage Act” — which blocks the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage — is unconstitutional.

This ruling is wonderful news and a huge victory in our fight to bring full equality to all Americans. But the federal government can appeal the ruling. It’s time to organize to ask our president to uphold equality by letting this decision stand.

Please join us in asking President Obama to direct the Justice Department to stand down and not appeal this ruling:

President Obama:

We, the undersigned, urge you to respect the federal judge’s decision ruling parts of the “Defense of Marriage Act” to be unconstitutional by directing the agencies under your control to not appeal this rulling.

This historic decision by Judge Joseph Tauro makes it clear that the “Defense of Marriage Act” was motivated by what he called “irrational prejudice.” There is no justification for continuing to defend this unconstitutional law in the courts.

We look to you to provide national leadership in support of full equality for all Americans. Please join us in welcoming this historic verdict by pledging to not appeal it to a higher court.

To sign, go here.

 

4 Responses to “Defence of Marriage Act Unconstitutional”

  1. Matt Drabek Says:

    Thanks for posting! I have had some trouble getting reliable information about the scope of the decision. Most of the coverage I have seen has been from Christian conservative websites, who have an incentive to make the decision seem more groundbreaking than it is (so they can use it to raise $$$). This site seems to have a good breakdown: http://www.365gay.com/news/explanation-of-the-doma-decision/

  2. J-Bro Says:

    Thanks for posting that. It’s a good summary based on my understanding as well.

  3. Ruthann Robson Says:

    For copies of the opinions – - – there are two companion cases – - – and a legal analysis, see:
    http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2010/07/doma-unconstitutional-massachusetts-federal-district-judge-finds-section-3-of-defense-of-marriage-act-unconstituti.html

  4. it has been an great blog for the sake of getting knowledge and which is inspiring me to read again and again.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 272 other followers