DOMA Challenge to Be Heard in Court

DOMA was created to protect the institution of marriage? What instituion? YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME! How many times has Elizabeth Taylor been married? How many times has Jennifer Lopez been married? Two heterosexual women who have been "institutionalized," more times than anyone can count or cares to remember, yet you have someone like George Takei Altman who has been with his partner for 15+ years, who was just allowed to be married in 2008! HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE? Marriage is a bond between two people that have decided to sustain their relationship throughout the tests of time. People get married for money, citizenship, a title, etc. every wrong reason in the book that have been abused by heterosexuals from time and time again, yet gays and lesbians aren't afforded the opportuntiy (whom have all the right reasons) due to a bunch of individuals that fall victims of their own hypcorisy? First african-americans, then jews, the japanese, now we are at gays and lesbians. Who is next?

And you haven't read your history of the FFC when ever brought to the Supreme Court. Just because something is law doesn't mean it's not unconstitutional or illegal. Marriage is a Contract... again read.

FTA: “The federal government, represented by the U.S. attorney's office in Boston, has asked that the case be dismissed, saying, among other things, that there is no fundamental right to federal benefits based on marital status.” The are right, there is no fundamental right to federal benefits based on marital status. You cannot however, give federal benefits to SOME because they are married and not to other people who are married. The law MUST be applied evenly.

@Brandon, I am a lawyer, and I actually understand the Full Faith and Credit Clause and a basic knowledge of family law. The FFC clause does not mean that a marriage entered into in state A is automatically valid in state B. Read the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws (which is followed by just about every state supreme court as it relates to marriage) which says that a marriage valid where performed, must be recognized unless it violates the strong public policy of the state. Read the Congressional history of DOMA (Congress thought that the part about recognition by other states was probably unnecessary [seriously google DOMA "full faith and credit" & "public policy"]). Also you CLEARLY did not understand what I said about marriage being the province of the states--family law is an issue of state concern, in fact it is the protypical example of something that has always been handled by the states AS OPPOSED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

Ryan, what you said is why Lawyers (The Founding Fathers) wrote in the Full Faith and Credit Clause. To ride the USofA of those problems. Also, marriage was never reserved to the states (if anything reserved to the individual). In the beginning there were no licenses to marry. Do a bit more legal history work please. Also, this can lean on when SCOTUS (again more legal history) ruled that anyone can contract themselves on anything. Marriage is a Contract and if argued as such, one can enter into a Contract with whomever they want. I'm hoping "our side" is doing just THAT much work to put that together.... honestly they just have to look at Quaker arguments to get theirs recognized.

Ryan and Ken are correct - Perry v Swartsnegger is a different trial than Gill v OPM. In a perfect world, if you were married in one state, then the full faith and credit clause of the 14th Amendment (which GLBT people are fenced out as we are not considered a suspect class) would be applicable. However DOMA went usurped state's rights with the Full-FC-Clause and did instead of expanding rights like SCOTUS did in Loving v Virginia, DOMA overruled this part of the 14th amendment also. "DOMA is unconstitional" unfortunately DOMA is part of the Constitution - inconsistent with the spirit of the rest of the Constitution. Same gender marriage does not get anyone any Federal right whatsoever, so the 1400 Federal Rights are "heterosexuals-only" until DOMA is overturned, Perry or Gill (or a handful of other cases) are decided by SCOTUS with at least a 5-4 victory, a 60% chance that Anthony Kennedy will rule in our favor. If my arch-enemy Francis is out there, please so more personal attacks

@Mark, First of all, you are wrong when you say "If someone is married in one state, he/she is married in all 50 states. That's the law." A states can decline to recognize a foreign state's marriages when that marriage violates the strong public policy of the state. Second, that provision of DOMA is not the issue in this case. This case is about whether the federal government has the authority to legislate about marriage, a subject that has, historically, been the exlusive province of the states.

How can the federal government say this unconstitutional discrimination is legal? If someone is married in one state, he/she is married in all 50 states. That's the law. DOMA is unconstitutional. Obama campaigned on repealing it.

Hey folks - click on that boston channel link in the story and start leaving comments - the enemy is working us over like mad.

To Val in London, the trial in California is in a different federal court district, the 9th Circuit Court. The closing arguments will be held in the California case soon. The decision in California will usually affect those states or regions of states covered by that district court. The case in Massachusetts is in the First Circuit Court (covering Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Rode Island, the US Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico) and will affect usually that region.. They are separate cases attacking the the same thing.