Post by cestlefun17 on Jun 14, 2011 8:47:30 GMT -5
Yesterday, the largest U.S. Bankruptcy Court (for the District of Central California) ruled that enforcing the "Defense of Marriage Act" to prevent a legally married same-sex couple from filing a joint bankruptcy petition is unconstitutional.
The 20 judges reviewing the case unanimously signed their names to the decision, which can be read in its entirety here: www.scribd.com/doc/57794777/DOMA-Memorandum-of-Decision
Note that U.S. Bankruptcy Court is not a true Article III court, but rather an Article I tribunal. Decisions from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California are appealed to the District Court for the Central District of California.
-----
The Debtors are lawfully married and are otherwise fully qualified to be joint debtors pursuant to § 302(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. The court concludes that dismissal of the bankruptcy case will not advance any of the following governmental interests:
*Encouraging responsible procreating and child-bearing (the Debtors have no children, and even if they did, there is no basis in the evidence or authorities to conclude that Debtors’ joint bankruptcy filing would affect Debtors’ children (if any, later) differently from children in other “traditional” joint bankruptcy cases);
*Defending or nurturing the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage (the Debtors are already married to each other, and allowing them to proceed jointly in this bankruptcy case cannot have the slightest cognizable effect on anyone else’s marriage);
*Defending traditional notions of morality (the Debtors’ joint bankruptcy filing is in no sense discernible to the court to be a validly challengeable affront to morality, traditional or otherwise, under the Fifth Amendment); or
*Preserving scarce resources (no governmental resources are implicatedby the Debtors’ bankruptcy case different from the resources brought to bear routinely in thousands upon thousands of joint bankruptcy cases filed over the years.
[...]Although individual members of Congress have every right to express their views and the views of their constituents with respect to their religious beliefs and principles and their personal standards of who may marry whom, this court cannot conclude that Congress is entitled to solemnize such views in the laws of this nation in disregard of the views, legal status and living arrangements of a significant segment of our citizenry that includes the Debtors in this case. To do so violates the Debtors’ right to equal protection of those laws embodied in the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
[...] the Motion to Dismiss Debtors’ chapter 13 case based on § 1307(c) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
[/signed]
The 20 judges reviewing the case unanimously signed their names to the decision, which can be read in its entirety here: www.scribd.com/doc/57794777/DOMA-Memorandum-of-Decision
Note that U.S. Bankruptcy Court is not a true Article III court, but rather an Article I tribunal. Decisions from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California are appealed to the District Court for the Central District of California.
-----
The Debtors are lawfully married and are otherwise fully qualified to be joint debtors pursuant to § 302(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. The court concludes that dismissal of the bankruptcy case will not advance any of the following governmental interests:
*Encouraging responsible procreating and child-bearing (the Debtors have no children, and even if they did, there is no basis in the evidence or authorities to conclude that Debtors’ joint bankruptcy filing would affect Debtors’ children (if any, later) differently from children in other “traditional” joint bankruptcy cases);
*Defending or nurturing the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage (the Debtors are already married to each other, and allowing them to proceed jointly in this bankruptcy case cannot have the slightest cognizable effect on anyone else’s marriage);
*Defending traditional notions of morality (the Debtors’ joint bankruptcy filing is in no sense discernible to the court to be a validly challengeable affront to morality, traditional or otherwise, under the Fifth Amendment); or
*Preserving scarce resources (no governmental resources are implicatedby the Debtors’ bankruptcy case different from the resources brought to bear routinely in thousands upon thousands of joint bankruptcy cases filed over the years.
[...]Although individual members of Congress have every right to express their views and the views of their constituents with respect to their religious beliefs and principles and their personal standards of who may marry whom, this court cannot conclude that Congress is entitled to solemnize such views in the laws of this nation in disregard of the views, legal status and living arrangements of a significant segment of our citizenry that includes the Debtors in this case. To do so violates the Debtors’ right to equal protection of those laws embodied in the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
[...] the Motion to Dismiss Debtors’ chapter 13 case based on § 1307(c) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
[/signed]
