Supreme Court Overturns Defense of Marriage Act 1073
12 U.S. states have adopted same-sex marriage over the past decade, and many other states have adopted legislation specifically intended to prevent same-sex marriages from being performed or recognized within their borders. The landscape has just changed on that front, though: the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which barred federal recognition of same-sex marriages, has been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court; here's the ruling itself. From the NBC News version of the story:
"The decision was 5-4, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy.
“'DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others,' the ruling said. 'The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity.'"
One major area this affects is tax law; that's one of the salient points in U.S. v. Windsor, the case that drove the court's conclusion. There's more on the story at many major news outlets, and at law-centric sources like SCOTUSblog. The Boston Globe is also live blogging various reactions.
Update: 06/26 16:58 GMT by T : In a separate decision, the court disappointed supporters of California's Proposition 8, a law passed by voter initiative, under which "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The court ruled that the private parties which had taken up the Prop 8 banner did not have standing to do so; as the story says, "The 5-4 decision avoids, for now, a sweeping conclusion on whether same-sex marriage is a constitutional "equal protection" right that would apply to all states."
Update: 06/26 16:58 GMT by T : In a separate decision, the court disappointed supporters of California's Proposition 8, a law passed by voter initiative, under which "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The court ruled that the private parties which had taken up the Prop 8 banner did not have standing to do so; as the story says, "The 5-4 decision avoids, for now, a sweeping conclusion on whether same-sex marriage is a constitutional "equal protection" right that would apply to all states."
Good! The US should stay out of it. (Score:5, Informative)
This is great. The majority opinion repeatedly makes the point that DOMA stepped on states' toes specifically to HARM a certain group, instead of help it, and that was unconstitutional. The US shouldn't be in the business of denying rights to citizens that states want them to have.
"DOMA’s avowed purpose and practical effect are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the states."
"When the State used its historic and essential authority to define the marital relation in this way, its role and its power in making the decision enhanced the recognition, dignity, and protection of the class in their own community. DOMA, because of its reach and extent, departs from this history and tradition of reliance on state law to define marriage"
"DOMA seeks to injure the very class New York seeks to protect. By doing so it violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government."
Anyway, this is great. People think that preventing gay marriage is somehow taking a stand against homosexuality or something. News flash: gay couples live as married couples whether you like it or not. The only thing banning the marriage certificate does is punish them for being gay, which is ridiculous beyond belief.
Re:Good ... (Score:1, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What now? (Score:5, Informative)
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
That's Section 2 of DOMA, which was not ruled on. Only Section 3 of DOMA was ruled unconstitutional. The above section, which decrees that one state does not have to uphold a same-sex marriage conducted in another state, is still law.
Re:What now? (Score:5, Informative)
I believe this particular ruling only covers DOMA ... they are supposed to release other decisions which might weigh in on individual state bans.
More than that, this particular ruling only covers Section 3 of DOMA. I mentioned this in a post below, but it's going to get lost in the fuss. DOMA has two halves: Section 2, which allows a state to not recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state, and Section 3, which defines marriage for the federal government as heterosexual. Only Section 3 was struck down. Section 2, which directly answers GP's question (correct, Alabama will not recognize your marriage), was not challenged and is still law.
Re:Good ... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Good ... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Good ... (Score:5, Informative)
Simple workaround:
1 - The State is out of the marriage business, and into the business of Civil Unions. Those pieces of State-respected status and benefits are conferred upon Civil Unions.
2 - Existing Marriages are grandfathered into Civil Union status.
3 - Secular / State-run ceremonies confer a Civil Union.
4 - Marriage becomes an institution of the Church, but at the same time as a "duly qualified" agent of the Church grants a Marriage, a Civil Union is granted as well.
Mostly transparent, probably annoys people on both sides equally.
As for "love", I think what we're looking for is a stable long-term situation. I suspect long-term stability is not possible without some definition of "love" being present. (Respect is certainly part of that mix, a component of that definition of "love".)
Comment removed (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Good ... (Score:4, Informative)
as I have said before, this entire thing is nothing more than a distraction from the real issues going on in america today.
Re:Good ... (Score:5, Informative)
Close, but you are still off. The Constitution grants the government rights. All others are left by default to the people and the States. In fact, it was argued that the Bill of Rights was redundant since common law precedent already included those items. Nonetheless, people were worried and they were explicitly written out, as well as the fact that all rights not given to the government by the Constitution (the 9th & 10th Amendments).
Effectively, the US Constitution is a negative constitution. Most constitutions enumerate rights with a list, like the UN Declaration of Rights. The US Constitution gives all rights to the people except the ones that it has enumerated to belong to the government.
Re:Good ... (Score:5, Informative)
You need to read the constitution again. It does not "grant" rights, it delineates the more important ones.
That is correct, all powers not explicitly granted to the federal government are retained by the people. That results in an infinite number of rights. For example, you actually do have a federal "right to fly", "right to drive", "right to marry whoever you want" simply by the fact that the constitution does not grant these powers to the general government.
The misunderstanding that the constitution would only grant a few finite rights was one of the strongest arguments against adopting the Bill of Rights.
Wikipedia covers it pretty well:
James Madison addressed what would become the Ninth Amendment as follows:
It has been objected also against a Bill of Rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.
The 9th (and somewhat 10th) amendment were drafted for the purpose of avoiding confusion about the enumeration of powers and rights, but it is somewhat depressing that the majority of people today believe that their only federal rights are those outlined by the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments.
Re:"Right" and "Left" change places yet again (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Good ... (Score:3, Informative)
Scalia is in favor of originalist interpretation of the Constitution and he's been pretty consistent about that. It is absurd to say that the framers of the Constitution intended the equal protection clause to mean equal protection for every form of marriage, therefore the court should have no basis for overturning the people's representatives decision to pass this law. He is the one being consistent here, it is the proponents of 'living constitution' who are always unpredictable and inconsistent because they believe Justices should vote based on their personal feelings of right and wrong.
Re:Good ... (Score:5, Informative)
...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
- Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws...
- Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Re:Good ... (Score:5, Informative)
Those rights are provided by the government. The right of paying less tax than others was a right granted to a group of people, usually a group of no more or less than 2, that were bearing offspring. Marriage was the churches answer to make sure that a child had a father to maturing age.
Holy fuck are you ignorant of the facts. Marriage originated as a means of property management, i.e. women as property. They were ordained by the churches originally because they were more often than not, the local magistrates. Also the churches, especially messianic types have a very vested interest in keeping the power in the hands of the patriarchy. Marriages of love, in a historical sense are pretty rare and are mostly a modern invention.
The state now, has a vested interest in encouraging cohabitation because such couples tend to spend more money and participate in the economy more than single people. Kids in the mix are just a bonus. Parents spend more money regardless of the gender of the couple. To encourage unions like this, the state offers tax incentives, much like they offer farm subsidies for planting certain crops over others. The raising of children is really incidental to the institution of marriage. People living together over long periods of time and occasionally fucking will eventually produce children, which is important to the economy, but really has nothing to do with marriage other than one is more likely to cause the other.
The rise of divorce rates is directly attributed to the empowerment of women in a through education and economics, it doesn't have shit to do with the church outside of women breaking the bounds of oppressive religion.
The state now gives the churches a semblance of dominion over marriage, but make no mistake, it is now solely an institution of the state. Any minister of any church must be recognized by the state as having a legitimate claim to ordination before any action they take towards performing a marriage ceremony (which is all it is, a meaningless ceremony) and then signing the legal document (the actual thing that makes a marriage legal). Without that the marriage would be null and void. If the person is not recognized by The State as having been given the authority by the state to do sign the paper, it isn't legal regardless of the participants gender.
Re:Attorney General didn't appeal (Score:2, Informative)
Interest in this case is my short-hand for fiduciary obligation, which is an established legal standard. These citizens are not being held accountable to anyone. The attorney general is at least representing the state because he/she was elected to a four-year term. This is actually a silver lining for the plaintiffs, because the Court could have ruled against them on the merits of the case, which would have set much worse precedent (from their perspective).
I see nothing in the California constitution that obligates the attorney general to defend a law he feels is unconstitutional. He must, however, ensure uniform and adequate enforcement: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_5
If California's AG did not perform to their satisfaction, they can vote for a new one, pass the proposition again, and the new AG will argue the case. The Court's decision does not preclude Prop. 8 from ever being passed again.
Re:Potayto/potatoh (Score:4, Informative)
That is an argument from ignorance: in the bible, marriage is between a man and a number of wives and concubines and slaves...
In the West marriage comes from Roman and Greek institutions, altered by Germanic traditions, and a post hoc sanction by the church -- inheritor of the Roman tradition.
Re:Good ... (Score:5, Informative)
If you really want to nit-pick, the Constution doesn't grant any rights to government, only enumerates certain powers granted to it by the people.
Re:Good ... (Score:4, Informative)
Technically, the concept of marriage predates religion. Religion just pretends they created it.