Fed appeals court strikes down DOMA

[bobyclumsyninja]

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...dge/?mobile=nc

[W]e conclude that review of Section 3 of DOMA requires heightened scrutiny. The Supreme Court uses certain factors to decide whether a new classification qualifies as a quasi-suspect class. They include: A) whether the class has been historically “subjected to discrimination,”; B) whether the class has a defining characteristic that “frequently bears [a] relation to ability to perform or contribute to society,” C) whether the class exhibits “obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics that define them as a discrete group;” and D) whether the class is “a minority or politically powerless.” Immutability and lack of political power are not strictly necessary factors to identify a suspect class. Nevertheless, immutability and political power are indicative, and we consider them here. In this case, all four factors justify heightened scrutiny: A) homosexuals as a group have historically endured persecution and discrimination; B) homosexuality has no relation to aptitude or ability to contribute to society; C) homosexuals are a discernible group with non-obvious distinguishing characteristics, especially in the subset of those who enter same-sex marriages; and D) the class remains a politically weakened minority.

[goodlun]

"classification of same-sex spouses was not substantially related to an important government interest"
I think this has to be one of the absolute best quotes regarding this matter.

[It is Fake]

Funny, you have a tag that says "STAFF WRITER" and you don't write ****. That's noob ****. You know better.

[bobyclumsyninja]

Funny, you have a tag that says "STAFF WRITER" and you don't write ****. That's noob ****. You know better.

Right you are.

I'm writing on it, but didn't finish, and wanted to get the thread going.

[It is Fake]

Gotcha...

[justsome]

So tired of all the "YAY ! Screw those republicans!" nonsense over this on my social media. Clinton signed this piece of **** into law, and the Obama whitehouse was defending it a coupla years back.

[bobyclumsyninja]

So tired of all the "YAY ! Screw those republicans!" nonsense over this on my social media. Clinton signed this piece of **** into law, and the Obama whitehouse was defending it a coupla years back.

Clinton's lowest moment IMO. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now, and it's going down (pun intended).

People are criticizing Republicans on this, because they still largely support it, and would love a constitutional amendment enshrining it. That's worthy of criticism.

[justsome]

That is indeed the case; i just wish these spoon-fed idiots had some grasp of history before they just parroted the company line.

' Clinton's lowest moment IMO." Heh. That's sayin' somethin', given the jizz-stained dress an whatnot.

[goodlun]

[QUOTE=justsome;2732085
' Clinton's lowest moment IMO." Heh. That's sayin' somethin', given the jizz-stained dress an whatnot.[/QUOTE]
Meh Jizz-Stained dress and the whatnot isn't a public policy.