Thursday, October 18, 2012

NEWS: DOMA found unconstitutional by 2nd circuit

...that would be the second appeals court that has found DOMA unconstitutional.  (The first being the first circuit).  Even sweeter, it came from an extremely conservative judge.  Best of all, it finds heightened scrutiny applies:
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.
And does a nice knock-down to the defenders of DOMA, the Congressionally-funded BLAG:
BLAG argues that, unlike protected classes, homosexuals have not "suffered discrimination for longer than history has been recorded." But whether such discrimination existed in Babylon is neither here nor there. BLAG concedes that homosexuals have endured discrimination in this country since at least the 1920s. Ninety years of discrimination is entirely sufficient to document a "history of discrimination."
This is the Edie Windsor case, who was legally married but wiped out financially because of estate taxes of her wife.  Unusually, it's already been sent to the Supreme Court, as part of a cluster of DOMA cases.

No comments: