New York – NY Judge: Anti-Gay Marriage Law Unconstitutional

    11

    New York – A federal judge in Manhattan joined a growing chorus of judges across the country Wednesday by striking down a key component of a federal law denying benefits to partners in a gay marriage.

    Join our WhatsApp group

    Subscribe to our Daily Roundup Email


    U.S. District Judge Barbara Jones said the federal Defense of Marriage Act’s efforts to define marriage “intrude upon the states’ business of regulating domestic relations.”

    She added that “that incursion skirts important principles of federalism and therefore cannot be legitimate, in this court’s view.”

    The judge said the law fails because it tries to re-examine states’ decisions concerning same-sex marriage. She said such a sweeping review interferes with a system of government that places matters at the core of the domestic relations law exclusively within the province of the states.

    The ruling came in a case brought by Edith Windsor, a woman whose partner died in 2009, two years after they married each other in Canada. Windsor brought the lawsuit after her late spouse, Thea Spyer, passed her estate to Windsor. Because of the federal law, Windsor did not qualify for the unlimited marital deduction and was required to pay $363,053 in federal estate tax on Spyer’s estate. Windsor sued the government in November 2010.

    As part of her ruling, Jones ordered the government to pay Windsor the money she had paid in estate tax.

    The government declined to comment through Ellen Davis, a spokeswoman for government attorneys in Manhattan.

    Civil rights groups praised the ruling. The American Civil Liberties Union included comments from Windsor in its release.

    “It’s thrilling to have a court finally recognize how unfair it is for the government to have treated us as though we were strangers,” Windsor said of her 44-year relationship with Spyer.

    James Esseks, director of the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project, said the ruling “adds to what has become an avalanche of decisions that DOMA can’t survive even the lowest level of scrutiny by the courts.”

    The ruling came just days after a federal appeals court in Boston found the law’s denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples unconstitutional. The decision by the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a federal judge’s 2010 ruling.

    The law was passed after a 1993 decision by the Hawaii Supreme Court made it appear Hawaii might legalize gay marriage. Since then, many states have instituted their own bans on gay marriage, while eight states have approved it, led by Massachusetts in 2004 and continuing with Connecticut, New York, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maryland, Washington state and the District of Columbia. Maryland and Washington’s laws are not yet in effect and may be subject to referendums.


    Listen to the VINnews podcast on:

    iTunes | Spotify | Google Podcasts | Stitcher | Podbean | Amazon

    Follow VINnews for Breaking News Updates


    Connect with VINnews

    Join our WhatsApp group


    11 Comments
    Most Voted
    Newest Oldest
    Inline Feedbacks
    View all comments
    11 years ago

    But ban on Large soda bottles is constitutional!

    chayala
    chayala
    11 years ago

    Next rabbi’s will be performing ceremonies for dogs cats birds etc!!! And before u know it you’ll see dog houses tree houses being erected, With indoor Plumbing and all modern accessories included

    11 years ago

    There are several other pending lawsuits which are likely to yield the same outcome. The Supreme court will hopefully decide the issue next year and resolve the rights issue once and for all and assure that same-gender couples have the same benefits as anyone else. I really don’t think we need the federal government deciding issues of “kiddushin” which are reserved for the individual states under the Constitution.

    Reb Yid
    Reb Yid
    11 years ago

    The Supreme Court will definitely overturn these decisions. The fed govt can certainly decide what type of marriages to recognize for federal tax purposes and federal benefits. There may be other aspects of the law that are unconstitutional but this isn’t one of them.

    sighber
    sighber
    11 years ago

    HJ Resolution 104: “Whereas Congress recognizes the historical tradition of ethical values and principles which are the basis of civilized society and upon which our great Nation was founded;Whereas these ethical values and principles have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization, when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws; Whereas without these ethical values and principles the edifice of civilization stands in serious peril of returning to chaos.Whereas society is profoundly concerned with the recent weakening of these principles that has resulted in crises that beleaguer and threaten the fabric of civilized society;
    Whereas the justified preoccupation with these crises must not let the citizens of this Nation lose sight of their responsibility to transmit these historical ethical values from our distinguished past to the generations of the future;” Homosexuality is prohibited by the seven laws of Noah-which Congress declared as the basis of civilized society upon which our nation was founded.

    ComeOn
    ComeOn
    11 years ago

    The stench from the bench is making me clench!
    -Savage Nation

    favish
    favish
    11 years ago

    and why should marriage to mother, father, sister, brother grandfather etc not be allowed .
    Who is anybody to tell me . After all, all sodomites say its nobodies business what i do behind closed doors.