MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Jihadin wrote:I prefer Trump actually

LOL.

You mean 4 times bankrupt Donald Trump of the Birther Lunacy division of the already gak eating crazy 'tea party'?

Kid_Kyoto wrote:....and 6 years of Nixon after all.

Scrabb wrote:

Kid_Kyoto wrote:....and 6 years of Nixon after all.

Nixon was great most of his term.

Jihadin wrote:Mit or Obama....either way...we're doomed. I actually probaly will vote for Mit. I doubt we survive as a nation with another 4 yrs of Obama.

sebster wrote:It never surprises me to see people just throw out "I think so and so will win". There seems to be almost no interest in current polling data, and certainly none at all in looking at what states a candidate will have to win to capture the election. Just kind of 'the economy is bad therefore Romney".

For the record, Obama is holding a 2.5% lead in overall polling data among likely voters, and while that lead is fairly marginal it looks a lot better when you look at state by state numbers it shapes up as a much stronger electoral advantage (were the election held tomorrow Obama would probably win about 297 votes, to Romney's 241).

All that shapes up to give Obama makes Obama about a 2:1 favourite to win the election, according to the polling wonks at [ur]fivethirtyeight.com[/url]. The betting market at intrade puts Obama at 56% to win, so they're calling a much closer election but still favouring Obama.

There's still a long race to come and anything can happen (with some months to go Mondale was a strong favourite against Reagan, and we all know how that turned out), but Obama is the favourite to win.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:Mit or Obama....either way...we're doomed. I actually probaly will vote for Mit. I doubt we survive as a nation with another 4 yrs of Obama.

You keep saying this, but you never seem capable of explaining exactly how the country will be destroyed. This is because there is no sensible sequence of events that goes from Obama does the kind of stuff Obama is doing to 'USA destroyed'... so in order to keep pretending it's anything other than stupid nonsense you keep it all as vague as possible.

Stop fething doing it.

Mannahnin wrote:Got some healthcare reform passed. Helped pull the economy out of the gutter. We were headed for the cliff when he took over, and he helped steer us away from it.

Melissia wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Got some healthcare reform passed. Helped pull the economy out of the gutter. We were headed for the cliff when he took over, and he helped steer us away from it.

Provided the Department of Veterans Affairs with more than $1.4 billion to improve services to America's Veterans. Added 4.6 billion USD to the Veterans Administration budget to recruit and retain more mental health professionals. Signed the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act to stop fraud and wasteful spending in the defense procurement and contracting system. Signed New START Treaty - nuclear arms reduction pact with Russia. First president to endorse same-sex marriage equality. Signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, restoring basic protections against pay discrimination for women and other workers. Provided travel expenses to families of fallen soldiers to be on hand when the body arrives at Dover AFB. Ended Bush administration's CIA program of 'enhanced interrogation methods' by requiring that the Army field manual be used as the guide for terrorism interrogations. Established Credit Card Bill of Rights, preventing credit card companies from imposing arbitrary rate increases on customers. Significantly increased funding for the Violence Against Women Act. Reversed 'global gag rule', allowing US aid to go to organizations regardless of whether they provide abortions. Significantly expanded Pell grants, which help low-income students pay for college. Expanded hate crime law in the US to include sexual orientation through the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Appointed the nation's first Chief Technology Officer. Signed financial reform law prohibiting banks from engaging in proprietary trading (trading the bank's own money to turn a profit, often in conflict with their customers' interests). Signed financial reform laws to allow shareholders of publicly traded companies to vote on executive pay. Cut the cost of prescription drugs in medicare by fifty percent. Provided $12.2 Billion in new funding for Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. Extended Benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees, and appointed more openly gay officials than any other president in US history (and, IIRC, more than all of the previous ones combined). Voluntarily disclosed visitors to the white house for the first time in history. Appointed first Latina to the US Supreme Court. Launched recovery.gov to track spending from the Recovery Act, providing transparency and allowing the public to report fraud, waste, or abuse.

Yeah, Obama hasn't done anything.

d-usa wrote:President Obama's executive branch has frozen my pay to help keep federal spending down.

His executive branch has also deported more people than any other president. Surely that counts as something.

Jihadin wrote:I see no hurry in repealing DOMA yet in congress. Before I get nailed on this. I could careless of samesex marriage it doesn't effect me. As for it being unconstitutional I don't see it.

'If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket what difference is it to me?'"[64]

Jihadin wrote:As for it being unconstitutional I don't see it.

Jihadin wrote:Thats a state issue to start off with. So its a state constitution thats involve first.

Jihadin wrote:Thats a state issue to start off with. So its a state constitution thats involve first.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:OT/ But rights are by the individual. Each individual is being given the same rights.

The Court has found that DOMA unconstitutionally discriminates against same-sex
married couples.

1970–1999
October 10, 1972: The United States Supreme Court dismisses appeal in Baker v. Nelson "for want of a substantial federal question".[110]
May 5, 1993: The Supreme Court of Hawaii rules that statute limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples is presumed to be unconstitutional unless the state can show that it is (1) justified by compelling state interests and (2) narrowly drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgements of rights under the Hawaii Constitution. The case is sent back to the lower courts for a trial on these two issues.[111]
September 21, 1996: President Bill Clinton signs into law the Defense of Marriage Act, denying federal recognition of same-sex marriages.
December 3, 1996: A Hawaii trial court judge holds that no compelling interests support Hawaii's statute limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. He stays the decision pending review by the Supreme Court of Hawaii.[112][113]
November 3, 1998: Hawaii voters pass a constitutional amendment to give the Hawaii State Legislature the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples.[114] Voters in Alaska approve a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.[115]
December 9, 1999: In light of the constitutional amendment, the Supreme Court of Hawaii in Baehr v. Miike reverses the decision of the trial court and remands the case with instructions to enter judgment for the state.[116]
December 20, 1999: The Vermont Supreme Court holds that exclusion of same-sex couples from benefits and protections incident to marriage under state law violated the common-benefits clause of the Vermont Constitution.

[edit] 2000–2009
November 2000: Voters in Nebraska approve Nebraska Initiative Measure 416, a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.[117]
November 2002: Voters in Nevada approve a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.[118]
November 18, 2003: The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court gives the state legislature 180 days to enact same-sex marriage.
February 11, 2004: The Massachusetts General Court (legislature) completes the first step in a process that would ban same-sex marriage. The process is not continued.
February 12 – March 11, 2004: San Francisco issues same-sex marriage licenses.
March 3 – April 20, 2004: Several Oregon counties, led by Portland's Multnomah County, issue same-sex marriage licenses.
May 17, 2004: Same-sex marriage starts in Massachusetts.
August 12, 2004: The California Supreme Court rules that the San Francisco marriages are void.
August 3, 2004: Voters in Missouri approve a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.[119]
September 18, 2004: Voters in Louisiana approve a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.[120]
November 2004: Voters in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Utah approve state constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.[121]
April 5, 2005: Voters in Kansas, by a 70% to 30% margin, approve a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.[122]
May 12, 2005: Nebraska Initiative Measure 416 overturned by United States District Judge Joseph F. Bataillon as a unconstitutional violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection clause, and a bill of attainder in violation of Article I's Contract Clause.
September 29, 2005: California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoes a same-sex marriage bill.
November 8, 2005: Voters in Texas approve a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.[123]
June 6, 2006: Voters in Alabama approve a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, with 81% of voters voting in favor.[124]
July 6, 2006: The New York Court of Appeals issues its decision in Hernández v. Robles, stating that same-sex partners do not have the right to marry under the New York Constitution.[125]
July 14, 2006: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit rules that Nebraska Initiative Measure 416's limiting marriage to one man and one woman does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection clause, and was not a bill of attainder in violation of Article I's Contract Clause, reversing Judge Joseph F. Bataillon's 2005 decision.
November 2006: Voters in Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin approve state constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.[126][127]
October 12, 2007: California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoes same-sex marriage bill.
May 15, 2008: The Supreme Court of California overturns the state's ban on same-sex marriage.
June 16, 2008: Same-sex marriage starts in California.
September 10, 2008: HB436, a bill that seeks to "eliminates the exclusion of same gender couples from marriage", is submitted to the New Hampshire House of Representatives.
October 10, 2008: The Supreme Court of Connecticut orders same-sex marriage legalized.
November 4, 2008: Voters in Arizona, California, and Florida approve state constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.[128]
November 5, 2008: Proposition 8 takes effect in California, stopping new same-sex marriage licenses from being issued after this date.
November 12, 2008: Same-sex marriage starts in Connecticut.
March 26, 2009: HB436 supporting same-sex marriage passes the New Hampshire House of Representatives.
April 3, 2009: The Iowa Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage.
April 6, 2009: A same-sex marriage bill is passed by the Vermont General Assembly and then vetoed by the governor.
April 7, 2009: The Vermont General Assembly overrides the governor's veto of the same-sex marriage bill.
April 23, 2009: Connecticut governor signs legislation which statutorily legalizes same-sex marriage (see October 10 and November 12, 2008), and also converts any existing civil unions into marriages as of October 1, 2010.
April 27, 2009: Same-sex marriage starts in Iowa.
April 29, 2009: HB436 supporting same-sex marriage passes the New Hampshire Senate with minor amendments.
May 6, 2009: Maine Governor Baldacci signs the Marriage Equality Bill. The New Hampshire House of Representatives concurs with the Senate's amendments to HB436, and the bill supporting same-sex marriage advances to Governor John Lynch.
May 12, 2009: A same-sex marriage bill passes in the lower house New York Assembly.
May 26, 2009: The California Supreme Court upholds Proposition 8, but also upholds the marriage rights of the 18,000 same-sex couples married while same-sex marriage had been briefly legalized.
June 3, 2009: The New Hampshire General Court passes new HB73, which includes protections for religious institutions, as required by Gov. John Lynch to secure his signature on HB436, a bill legalizing same-sex marriage. Gov. Lynch signs both bills the same day.
September 1, 2009: Same-sex marriage starts in Vermont.
October 2, 2009: A Texas judge rules the state's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional while presiding over the divorce proceedings for two gay Texans married in Massachusetts, clearing the way for both Texas's first same-sex divorce and a legal challenge to the same-sex marriage ban.[129]
October 11, 2009: California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signs into law recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriage.[130][131]
November 3, 2009: The same-sex marriage law passed in Maine is repealed through a popular referendum, with 53% in favor of repeal.[22][132]
December 1, 2009: The Council of the District of Columbia passes same-sex marriage bill 11-2 in its first vote. The bill must pass a second vote on December 15 before it can go to Mayor Adrian Fenty for signature. Barring interference by the United States Congress within thirty legislative days after Mayor Fenty signs the bill, DC will allow same-sex marriage.[133]
December 2, 2009: Same-sex marriage legislation is defeated 38–24 in the New York State Senate.[134]
December 15, 2009: District of Columbia City Council passes same-sex marriage bill 11-2 in its second vote. The bill was signed by Mayor Fenty on December 18, 2009.[135]

[edit] 2010–present

[edit] 2010
January 1, 2010: Same-sex marriage starts in New Hampshire and all out-of-state same-sex marriages are given the benefits of marriage under California law, although only those performed before November 5, 2008 are granted the designation "marriage".[136]
January 7, 2010: The New Jersey Senate voted on a same-sex marriage bill (S-1967) during the waning days of Governor Jon Corzine's administration. The bill failed by a 14-20 vote (21 votes are needed to pass) with three senators abstaining.[137][138]
February 24, 2010: Maryland's attorney general issues an opinion requiring the state to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.[139]
March 3, 2010: Same-sex marriage starts in Washington, D.C.[140]
July 8, 2010: Judge Joseph Tauro of the District Court of Massachusetts held in two related cases (Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services) that the denial of federal rights and benefits to lawfully married same-sex couples in Massachusetts under the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional under the Fifth and Tenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.[18][19]
August 4, 2010: California's Proposition 8 is overturned by United States District Judge Vaughn R. Walker in Perry v. Schwarzenegger as an unconstitutional violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.
August 31, 2010: The Fifth Court of Appeals in Dallas, Texas reverses a 2009 ruling in a same-sex divorce case, ruling that the Texas constitutional ban on same-sex marriage does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court further rules that district courts in Texas do not have subject-matter jurisdiction to hear a same-sex divorce case.[141]
October 12, 2010: The Department of Justice appealed against Tauro's July 8 decision (see above).[142]

[edit] 2011
February 23, 2011: The Obama Administration announced its determination that discrimination based on sexual orientation is subject to heightened scrutiny and when judged by that standard is unconstitutional. It will continue to enforce DOMA's provisions, will no longer defend challenges to the constitutionality of section 3 of DOMA in court, and will cooperate with the courts if Congress decides to assert its right to defend DOMA's constitutionality in court.[143]
February 24, 2011: The Maryland Senate votes 25–21 in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage.[144] One week later, the bill is returned to House of Delegates judiciary committee without a final vote.[145]
March 4, 2011: Speaker of the House John Boehner announced he would exercise Congress's right to defend DOMA's constitutionality in court by convening a bipartisan legal advisory group tasked with "initiating action by the House to defend this law."[146]





From the gallery of the New York State Senate, supporters of the Marriage Equality Act celebrate the bill's passage, June 24, 2011. June 24, 2011: The New York State Senate passed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage by a vote of 33–29. The bill was signed by Governor Andrew Cuomo and became law.[26]
July 24, 2011: Granting of same-sex marriages begins in New York.[147]
August 1, 2011: Washington state's Native American Suquamish tribe approves granting same-sex marriages.[148]

[edit] 2012
January 26, 2012: Proponents of same-sex marriage in Maine submit 96,137 petition signatures to the Maine Secretary of State's Office for an initiative to legalize same-sex marriage in Maine.[149]
February 2, 2012: The Washington State Senate voted 28-21 in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage, sending the issue to the Washington House of Representatives.[150]
February 7, 2012: The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirms district court Judge Vaughn Walker's decision in Perry, overturning California Proposition 8.
February 8, 2012: The Washington House of Representatives voted 55–43 on a bill to legalize same-sex marriage sending the issue to Governor Christine Gregoire.[151]
February 13, 2012: Governor Christine Gregoire of Washington State signs a same-sex marriage bill into law. [152] Also, the New Jersey Senate passes a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in a 24-16 vote, sending the bill to the state assembly. [153]
February 16, 2012: The New Jersey Assembly passes a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in a 42-33 vote, sending the bill to Governor Chris Christie. [154]
February 17, 2012: Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey vetoes a bill to legalize same-sex marriage.[155] Also ,the Maryland House of Delegates passes a bill 72–67 legalizing same-sex marriage.[156]
February 22, 2012: Judge Jeffrey White rules the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional in Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management. Judge White found that Karen Golinski, an attorney and employee of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, saying that her rights had been violated under the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution when she was denied spousal benefits.[157]
February 23, 2012: The Maryland Senate approves a bill legalizing same-sex marriage.[158] Also, the Secretary of State of Maine, Charlie Summers, announces that his office has verified 85,216 petition signatures for an initiative to legalize same-sex marriage; 57,277 signatures were needed. Consequently, a citizen-initiated bill to legalize same-sex marriages will be sent the Maine legislature. If the legislature approves the bill and the governor signs it, it will become law; if the legislature votes it down or the governor vetoes it, the issue will be put on the November ballot.[149]
March 1, 2012: Governor Martin O'Malley from Maryland signs a bill legalizing same-sex marriage.[159][160] Opponents begin to collect signatures to subject it to a referendum on the November 2012 ballot.
March 13–15, 2012: The Maine legislature votes down the citizen-initiated bill to legalize same-sex marriage, sending the final decision to the voters on the November ballot as a referendum. It will be the first time in US history that same-sex marriage has been put to a popular vote due to a petition from supporters; all previous propositions, initiatives, and referendums on the issue have been due to petitions from the opposition.[161][162][149]
March 21, 2012: The New Hampshire House of Representatives rejects repeal of the state's 2009 same-sex marriage bill in a bipartisan vote of 211-116.[163]
May 8, 2012: Voters in North Carolina approve North Carolina Amendment 1, defining marriage as between a man and a woman and prohibiting the recognition of any type of same-sex union in that state.[164]
May 9, 2012: President Barack Obama becomes the first sitting U.S. president to declare his support for legalizing same-sex marriage.[165]
May 14, 2012: Governor Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island signs an executive order directing state agencies to treat same-sex marriages performed out-of-state equally under the law.[166][167]
June 7, 2012: The State of Maryland validates at least 70,039 petition signatures from same-sex marriage opponents, forcing a same-sex marriage referendum on the November 2012 ballot.[168]
June 12, 2012: The State of Washington validates that same-sex marriage opponents have submitted more than the necessary 120,577 signatures to force the state's recently passed same-sex marriage law onto the ballot in November as a referendum.[169]
July 7, 2012: Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts marries his partner, Jim Ready, becoming the first member of Congress to enter into a same-sex marriage.[170]

Melissia wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:OT/ But rights are by the individual. Each individual is being given the same rights.

Same nonsensical argument that racists make about anti-miscegenation laws.

Just as that argument failed, so does yours.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:I do not support anti-miscegenation laws, but neither do I see a similarity here.

Melissia wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:I do not support anti-miscegenation laws, but neither do I see a similarity here.

I'm well aware of your willful ignorance on the topic.

The fact remains, however, that everyone had the same rights under anti-miscegenation laws. You had the right to marry those of your race. Equal rights for all!

d-usa wrote:The original laws also stated that slaves were 3/5 of a person, we changed that.

Marriage is a contract between two people, why should the state restrict what two people can sign on the dotted line?

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:You are emotional about this issue.

But emotion makes poor legal standing.

Melissia wrote:

The Court has found that DOMA unconstitutionally discriminates against same-sex
married couples.

Full decision here, debunking every argument made in support of DoMA.

The first reason proffered by Congress when enacting DOMA was to encourage responsible procreation and child-rearing.
[...]
More than thirty years of scholarship resulting in over fifty peer-reviewed empirical reports have overwhelmingly demonstrated that children raised by same-sex parents are as likely to be emotionally healthy, and educationally and socially successful as those raised by opposite-sex parents.
[...]
Furthermore, to the extent Congress was interested merely in encouraging responsible procreation and child-rearing by opposite-sex married couples, a desire to encourage opposite-sex couples to procreate and raise their own children well would not provide a legitimate reason for denying federal recognition of same-sex marriages. The denial of recognition and withholding of marital benefits to same-sex couples does nothing to support opposite-sex parenting, but rather merely serves to endanger children of same-sex parents by denying them “‘the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure,’ when afforded equal recognition under federal law.”
[...]
Accordingly, the Court finds that the first proffered reason for the passage of DOMA – to encourage responsible procreation and child-rearing – does not provide a justification that is substantially related to an important governmental objective.
[...]
The second reason proffered by Congress when passing DOMA, was its asserted interest in defending and nurturing traditional, opposite-sex marriage. Tradition alone, however, cannot form an adequate justification for a law.
[...]
In addition, the ostensible governmental objective of fostering opposite-sex marriages remains unaffected by the passage of DOMA. DOMA does nothing to encourage same-sex married individuals to marry members of the opposite sex because they are already married to a member of the same sex. Nor does the denial of benefits to same-sex couples do anything to encourage opposite-sex couples to get married.
[...]
Accordingly, the Court does not find that the second proffered reason for the passage of DOMA – to defend and nurture the institution of traditional, opposite-sex marriage – provides a justification that is substantially related to an important governmental objective.
[...]
The third reason proffered by Congress when passing DOMA was its asserted interest in defending traditional notions of morality. Basing legislation on moral disapproval of same-sex couples does not pass any level of scrutiny. “The animus toward, and moral rejection of, homosexuality and same-sex relationships are apparent in the Congressional record.” See Dragovich, 764 F. Supp. 2d at 1190. “[M]oral condemnation of homosexuality [does not] provide the requisite justification for the DOMA’s section three. The ‘bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group’ is not a legitimate [governmental] interest.”
[...]
“Moral disapproval of a group cannot be a legitimate governmental interest under the Equal Protection Clause because legal classifications must not be ‘drawn for the purpose of disadvantaging the group burdened by the law.’” Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 582 (O’Connor, J., concurring) (quoting Romer, 517 U.S. at 633). “[T]he fact that the governing majority ... has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason
for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack.” Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 577-78.
[...]
Accordingly, the Court does not find that the third proffered reason for the passage of DOMA – to defend traditional notions of morality – provides a justification that is substantially related to an important governmental objective.
[...]
The final reason proffered by Congress for passing DOMA was the preservation of scarce government resources. However, there is no evidence in the record to demonstrate that the provision of federal benefits to same-sex married couples would adversely affect the government fisc. In addition, the preservation of government resources cannot, as a matter of law, justify barring some arbitrarily chosen group from a government program.
[...]
Accordingly, the Court does not find that the fourth proffered reason for the passage of DOMA – to preserve scarce government resources – provides a justification that is substantially related to an important governmental objective.
[...]
Accordingly, the Court does not find that the fourth proffered reason for the passage of DOMA – to preserve scarce government resources – provides a justification that is substantially related to an important governmental objective.
[...]
The Court has already addressed the four interests proffered by Congress during the passage of DOMA and found them not to be substantially related to an important governmental objective. Similarly, under the rational basis review, the Court finds that none of Congress’ proffered justifications constitute a rational relation in furtherance of some legitimate governmental end.
[...]
Specifically, the Court finds that Congress’ justification of promoting traditional notions of morality does not satisfy rational basis scrutiny. See Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 582 (holding that “[m]oral disapproval of [homosexuals], like a bare desire to harm the group, is an interest that is insufficient to satisfy rational basis review under the Equal Protection Clause.”) Also, if the denial of benefits is designed to defend traditional notions of morality by discouraging same-sex marriage, “it does so only by punishing same-sex couples who exercise their rights under state law, and thus exhibits the ‘bare desire to harm’ same-sex couples.” In re Levenson, 587 F.3d at 932 (emphasis in original). This is forbidden by the Constitution. See Romer, 517 U.S. at 634- 35. “Discouraging gay marriage serves only to force gay couples to live in a ‘state of sin’ rather than in a lawfully-recognized ‘state of connubial bliss’ that encourages a long-enduring permanent relationship that, in turn, serves as the basis of a state-recognized family.” In re Levenson, 587 F.3d at 932. The promotion of morality is not a cognizable governmental interest furthered by the denial of federal benefits and protections.
[...]
The Court does not find the justification of encouraging responsible procreation and child-rearing survives rational basis scrutiny. Even if the Court were to accept as true, which it does not, that opposite-sex parenting is somehow superior to same-sex parenting, DOMA is not rationally related to this alleged governmental interest.
[...]
DOMA has no effect on who may become a parent under federal or state law. Moreover, whether a same-sex couple is entitled to marriage benefits has no rational relation to that couple’s or an opposite-sex couple’s ability to procreate. Significantly, to reiterate, the ability to procreate has never been a precondition to marriage in any jurisdiction. See Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 605 (Scalia, J. dissenting). Here, there is simply no connection between the ability (or capacity) to become a parent and the designation of federal entitlements based on a definition of marriage that excludes legally married couples who are capable of becoming parents.

Denying federal benefits to same-sex married couples has no rational effect on the procreation and child-rearing practices of opposite-sex married (or unmarried) couples.
[...]
Accordingly, the Court finds that Congress’ stated justification of encouraging responsible procreation and child-rearing bears no rational relationship to the classification which burdens same-sex married couples.
[...]
Again, the argument that the definition of marriage should remain the same for the definition’s sake is a circular argument, not a rational justification. Simply stating what has always been does not address the reasons for it. The mere fact that prior law, history, tradition, the dictionary and the Bible have defined a term does not give that definition a rational basis, it merely states what has been. Tradition, standing alone, does not provide a rational basis for the law.
[...]
BLAG argues, but does not explain how denying marriage benefits only to same-sex couples will somehow make marriage between opposite-sex couples better. The proffered justification may derive from strongly-held religious or fundamentally traditional beliefs, but still does not provide a legally recognizable rational basis for sustaining a law that actively discriminates against legally married couples. The exclusion of same-sex couples from the federal definition of marriage does nothing to encourage or strengthen opposite-sex marriages.
[...]
Accordingly, the Court finds that Congress’ stated justification of nurturing the institution of traditional, opposite-sex marriage bears no rational relationship to the classification which burdens same-sex married couples.
[...]
BLAG contends that Congress could have had a rational basis for the passage of DOMA by preserving the status quo in the federal definition of marriage while waiting for the states to “tinker with the substantive centuries-old definition of marriage.” (BLAG Opp. Br. on Motion for Summary Judgment at 22.) To the extent this argument is premised upon preserving a traditional definition of marriage for its own sake, the Court has already rejected this argument. As the court found in Gill, “[s]taying the course is not an end in and of itself, but rather a means to an end.” Gill, 699 F. Supp. 2d at 390-94. The long history of discrimination against gay men and lesbians does not provide a rational basis for continuing it.
[...]
Moreover, DOMA does not preserve the status quo. The passage of DOMA marks a stark departure from tradition and a blatant disregard of the well-accepted concept of federalism in the area of domestic relations. See Gill, 699 F. Supp. 2d at 392 (finding that DOMA “mark[ed] the first time the federal government has ever attempted to legislatively mandate a uniform federal definition of marriage – or any other core concept of domestic relations, for that matter”); see also Dragovich, 764 F. Supp. 2d at 1189 (“[S]ection three of DOMA was a preemptive strike to bar federal legal recognition of same-sex marriages should certain states decide to allow them, rather than a law that furthered the status quo, which gave the states authority to define marriage for themselves.”).
[...]
The Court finds that the passage of DOMA, rather than maintaining the status quo in the arena of domestic relations, stands in stark contrast to it. Accordingly, the Court finds that Congressional caution in defining a legislative term and maintaining the status quo does not constitute a rational basis.
[...]
BLAG also contends that Congress should remain cautious, especially in an area of so much social divisiveness, by holding the purported federal definition of marriage steady while waiting to see how the states tinker with new definitions. The Court finds the contention similar to arguments that were advanced in support of antimiscegenation laws. Proponents similarly argued that the long-standing tradition of the separation of the races provided justification for prohibiting interracial marriage. The lower court in Loving found that God had created the races and placed them on separate continents in order that there “would be no cause for such [interracial] marriages.” 388 U.S. at 3. It was, at the time, a strongly-held belief among proponents of antimiscegenation laws that mixing the races was against God’s will, flaunted a long history of tradition and, at its core, endangered the institution of marriage. See id. However, in its holding in Loving, the Supreme Court found that although interracial marriage was a socially divisive issue and proponents of antimiscegenation held traditional and religious beliefs about the erosion of the traditional concept of marriage, Virginia’s racial classification violated the equal protection guarantee. Id. at 11-12.
[...]
More recently, in Romer, the Supreme Court addressed a proposed amendment to the Colorado state constitution that would prohibit all legislative, executive, or judicial action designed to protect discrimination against homosexuals. One of the arguments in support of the state amendment was that it was an attempt to withdraw “a deeply divisive social and political issue from elected representatives and place its resolution squarely in the hands of the people.” (See Brief for Petitioner filed April 21, 1995 in Romer v. Evans, No. 94-1039 (Supreme Court), 1995 WL 17008429, at *10.) Proponents contended that it was important to ensure that “the deeply divisive issue of homosexuality does not serve to seriously fragment Colorado’s body politic.” (See id., at *47.) Proponents argued that it required some leeway in this socially divisive atmosphere to handle the “sensitive and core political choices” in matters regarding discrimination against homosexuals calmly over time. (Id.) The Supreme Court, however, flatly rejected this argument as providing a rational basis and found that the proposed amendment to the Colorado state constitution was unconstitutional. Romer, 517 U.S. at 620. Here, too, this Court finds that Congress cannot, like an ostrich, merely bury its head in the sand and wait for danger to pass, especially at the risk of permitting continued constitutional injury upon legally married couples. The fact that the issue is socially divisive does nothing to relieve the judiciary of its obligation to examine the constitutionality of the discriminating classifications in the law.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Congressional caution in the area of social divisiveness does not constitute a rational basis.
[...]
BLAG also contends that Congress could have rationally sought to base eligibility for federal benefits on a traditional definition of marriage in order “to avoid the arbitrariness and inconsistency in such eligibility ... and not depend[] on the vagaries of state law.” (BLAG Motion to Dismiss at 24.) However, as explained above, in all of the years preceding the passage of DOMA, Congress relied on the various states’ definitions of marriage without incident. All couples married under state law were entitled to federal benefits, even if the particulars of the states’ definitions were variable. The passage of DOMA actually undermined administrative consistency by requiring that the federal government, for the first time, discern which state definitions of marriage are entitled to federal recognition and which are not. Accordingly, the Court finds that consistency does not constitute a rational basis.
[...]
The Court finds that neither Congress’ claimed legislative justifications nor any of the proposed reasons proffered by BLAG constitute bases rationally related to any of the alleged governmental interests. Further, after concluding that neither the law nor the record can sustain any of the interests suggested, the Court, having tried on its own, cannot conceive of any additional interests that DOMA might further.
[...]
The Court has found that DOMA unconstitutionally discriminates against same-sex married couples. Even though animus is clearly present in its legislative history, the Court, having examined that history, the arguments made in its support, and the effects of the law, is persuaded that something short of animus may have motivated DOMA’s passage: Prejudice, we are beginning to understand, rises not from malice or hostile animus alone. It may result as well from insensitivity caused by simple want of careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves.
Board of Trustees of University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 374-75 (2001) (Kennedy,
J., concurring).
[...]
In this matter, the Court finds that DOMA, as applied to Ms. Golinski, violates her right to equal protection of the law under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution by, without substantial justification or rational basis, refusing to recognize her lawful marriage to prevent provision of health insurance coverage to her spouse.