Judge Claudia Wilken of the US District Court for Northern California has ruled the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional because congressmen who passed the law in 1996 based their position on moral values and the historic definition of marriage -- an implication by the judge that Bible-believing Christians are bigots.
To read the saga of lawlessness and judicial activism, read and follow subsequent links: Traditional Marriage Law Unconstitutional: Federal Judge on DOMA and also in Obama Defeats Marriage, Again - Congress Responds
UPDATE 6/29/13: U.S. Supreme Court Agrees, Bible-believing Christians ARE Bigots!
UPDATE 5/31/12: Defense of Marriage Act heads to US Supreme Court
-- From "Defense of Marriage Act: 2nd judge overturns law" by Bob Egelko, San Francisco Chronicle 5/25/12
Congress violated constitutional standards on legalized bigotry when it denied federal benefits to same-sex spouses and excluded domestic partners of state employees from long-term health coverage, a federal judge ruled Thursday.
The decision by U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken of Oakland was the second by a Bay Area judge this year to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act, the 1996 law withholding more than 1,000 federal benefits - such as joint tax filing, Social Security survivor payments and immigration sponsorship - from gays and lesbians legally married under state law.
Wilken also overturned another 1996 law that denied federal tax benefits to long-term health insurance plans for state employees if they included domestic partners.
That law, like the Defense of Marriage Act, was based on "moral condemnation and social disapprobation of same-sex couples," she said. She cited assertions during congressional debate that same-sex domestic partnership was "an attack on the family" and would "undermine the traditional moral values that are the bedrock of this nation."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Federal Judge: DOMA Is Unconstitutional Because It Denies Insurance Benefits" by The Associated Press 5/25/12
"Congress's restriction on state-maintained long-term care plans lacks any rational relationship to a legitimate government interest, but rather appears to be motivated by antigay animus," Wilken wrote in ordering the California Public Employees' Retirement System to allow current and former state employees to enroll their same-sex spouses and partners in the extended care plan.
Lawyers representing a House of Representatives committee that has taken on the job of defending the Defense of Marriage Act in court since the Obama administration said it no longer would did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment. Wilken said she would stay her decision in the event of an appeal.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Judge strikes down Defense of Marriage Act provision in California employees' case" by Bay City News Service 5/25/12
Wilken issued her ruling in a lawsuit filed against the California Public Employees' Retirement System, known as CalPERS, by same-sex couples. The system has refused to let gay spouses enroll in its federally approved insurance program on the ground that they were excluded by DOMA.
An appeal of [a related] decision by a Republican-led Congressional group is slated to be heard by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco in September.
The group's three Republican members, including Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, supported intervening in the two lawsuits to defend DOMA. Its two Democratic members, including Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, opposed doing so.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Gay marriage: Judge overturns DOMA, stepping up pressure on Supreme Court" by Mike Eckel, Contributor to The Christian Science Monitor 5/25/12
Along with a parallel challenge to a California law banning same-sex marriage, the decisions mean the US high court could be hearing arguments about the emotionally charged and politically fraught issue of marriage for gays and lesbians within the next two years.
[Judge Wilken's] argument is outrageous, says Dale Schowengerdt, legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, which supports DOMA.
"To say that a law that was passed by overwhelmingly by Congress … to say that that’s the product of animus is – I don’t know how to say it – it's unbelievable,” he says. “It’s just unbelievable that a judge would be making that sort of value judgment against the entire government, the Congress, and President Bill Clinton."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
The case is Dragovich v. United States Department of the Treasury
Also read 'Gay Rights' Winning, Loss of Religious Liberty Documented - Washington Post writer demonstrates it's a "zero sum" game: Winning homosexual 'rights' means Christians must lose freedom of religion.
