Section 3 of Federal Doma Struck Down As Unconstitutional

Obviously, I am pleased with the decisions today in the case brought in U. S. Federal District Court by GLAD, and the parallel case, Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. HHS, brought by Mass. Attorney General Martha Coakley. Unless a judge or court factors in religious based bigotry, I candidly do not know how any other decision could have been reached. Marriages in five states and the District of Columbia treated differently than all other state marriage with no true justification other than writing Christianist religious beliefs into the federal law. Denial of equal protection doesn't get much more clear cut. If the Obama administration were honest about the true illegal motivation behind DOMA - and, admittedly expecting honesty from Obama & Co. at this point is a huge stretch - no appeal of the District Court ruling would be forthcoming. Unfortunately, I expect the Obama Justice Department to note an appeal. Why? Because other than meaningless statements in disingenuous speeches, I am increasingly convinced that Obama is an opponent of full LGBT equality. He'll take tiny mincing steps and reluctantly back half measures when forced to do so even though he does not believe in them only for the purpose of trying to keep the LGBT ATM in operation. It's enough to make me want to vomit. Here are some opinion highlights, first from the GLAD case:
*
By premising eligibility for these benefits on marital status in the first instance, the federal government signals to this court that the relevant distinction to be drawn is between married individuals and unmarried individuals. To further divide the class of married individuals into those with spouses of the same sex and those with spouses of the opposite sex is to create a distinction without meaning. And where, as here, “there is no reason to believe that the disadvantaged class is different, in relevant respects” from a similarly situated class, this court may conclude that it is only irrational prejudice that motivates the challenged classification. As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
*
And from the case brought by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts:
*
[I]t is clearly within the authority of the Commonwealth to recognize same-sex marriages among its residents, and to afford those individuals in same-sex marriages any benefits, rights, and privileges to which they are entitled by virtue of their marital status. The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state, and, in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment. For that reason, the statute is invalid.

*

Given these reasoned rulings and other recent cases on the issue of equal protection for LGBT Americans, if the Obama administration appeals these cases, then I will know that Obama is a liar. A very slick one, but a liar nevertheless when it comes to the issue of being a "fierce advocate" for LGBT equality. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, and shame on me. I will not be fooled by Obama agin.