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."
So now that they can't use it as a weapon anymore (Score:4, Insightful)
Will the republicans finally pull the jesus buttplug out of their ass and start being conservatives and start getting rid of all the inheritance bullshit they've built up over the years to protect their vision of what a family is supposed to be?
NOT News For Nerds (Score:0, Insightful)
Stop it now, this is just not news for nerds and does not belong on this site.
Re:Funny results reporting (Score:5, Insightful)
At this point, anyone who doubts that Fox News is putting extremely heavy spin and lies into their "news" is just not paying attention. It's an entertainment network, not a news network.
Re:Funny results reporting (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, if you find propaganda to be entertaining.
Re:What now? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Shocking, antidisestablishmentarianism . (Score:4, Insightful)
A wedding may be a religious ceremony. Weddings happen without religion and happened long before religion.
Marriages too.
Re:Funny results reporting (Score:5, Insightful)
A twist would've been FOX saying that the ruling hurts traditional family values. Or that we are all going to die.
Marriage is none of the government's business (Score:5, Insightful)
If 2 or 3 or 10 consenting adults wish to share their lives, so be it. Beyond the emotional component of marriage, which the government can add no value, the rest should fall under contract law.
Re:What now? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good ... (Score:4, Insightful)
I for one want the government out of marriage. Let the churches deal with "marriage"
Now having said that. If 2 gay people want to live together and have the same rights that current married couples get, I dont see why that should not be allowed. I also think that if 2 people simply live together they should get the same rights, "love" should never be the deciding factor when it comes to giving tax breaks to people or even worse tax money to people.
The Problem here is not marriage (Score:5, Insightful)
Its sad really, (Score:0, Insightful)
I'm glad this was overturned, but had the NSA leak not happened we'd be reading about the Supreme court defending DOMA right now. Make no mistake, this happened as a "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" distraction from the issues with the ongoing monitoring of all US citizens.
Re:What now? (Score:4, Insightful)
You know, "states' rights" doesn't equal "racism" no matter how hard you try. The Federal government should be ensuring that people's rights aren't violated, but there's plenty of room for states to have their own rights as per the Constitution, without cutting off our nose to spite our face. That's where DOMA came into play - it didn't seek to invalidate the rights of states to respect same-sex marriage, it sought to allow other states to invalidate those rights. This has been struck down, and it's a good thing. But, to change the subject, let's talk about cannabis legalization. Two states have outright legalized it even for recreational use, and those laws should be upheld as they infringe on nobody's rights. That's the type of thing that is actually within the purview of "states' rights" without being discriminatory or prejudicial.
To some people, there are only two options they see - either the Federal government micro-manages the states, or the states have full autonomy regardless of who is being wronged. This speaks more to an inability of many people to see an issue in anything other than black and white, and in fact is the major reason that the US is so divided on social issues nowadays.
Re:Good ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Rights are given by the government. If marriage gives you extra rights, then the government says what those are.
Rights are given by the government? You need to take a civics class.
Re:Good ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Rights are given by the government.
Somebody seems unfamiliar with the basis of the government of the USA. Something about people being endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. If I remember correctly, the government is not my creator.
Your view on rights is not compatible with the United States.
Re:Good ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Rights are PROTECTED by the government, not GIVEN by the government.
"marriage" vs "civil union" (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be straightforward to have "marriage" be separate from "legally joined in the eyes of the state"
Re:Good ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Horse shit. You can get married at city hall without involving a church; there is no reason to involve a 'church' at all. Atheists get married all the time, and don't require the blessing of a church. You can get married by a justice of the peace or a ship's captain without ever once invoking god.
There's marriage as a religious institution, and marriage as a legally recognized civil institution. This decision is ruling on the civil aspects of marriage.
The civil institution of marriage confers legal rights to people, and this was basically about denying those same rights to another group of people.
If marriage only affected religious aspects of your life, it would be one thing. But it affects taxes, property rights, and all sorts of things which have nothing whatsoever to do with a church.
So, no, as long as there are rights granted to people on the basis of being married, this is not an issue for the churches. Marriage has long since ceased to be a purely religious institution, and that's what this ruling is addressing.
Re:Good ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I also think that if 2 people simply live together they should get the same rights, "love" should never be the deciding factor when it comes to giving tax breaks to people or even worse tax money to people.
Of course, there are plenty of people who are married that aren't in love. I mean, how many May-December romances are actually about love, rather than the May half of the couple getting a ton of cash by the time they're 40 while the December half gets some sex and nursing in their old age? And there are also plenty of couples that are married and remain together solely to prevent the kids from living through a divorce. And in some subcultures in the US there are still arranged marriages. And there are some college friends of mine who weren't in love at all but were legally married because they could get better financial aid that way.
I agree with your basic premise though. What the government should be doing is providing a way to designate any other person as legally a part of your family, for medical decision-making, inheritance, etc, without any assumptions about what the nature of that relationship actually is. For example, my grandmother lived with a long-time friend of hers for about 20 years, and to the best of my knowledge weren't lovers, but that friendship was at least as important to them as their marriages had been.
Re:Good ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Enumerated - but not granted. Its much akin to how a map lists and acknowledges places, but it doesn't create them.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:From a citizen's standpoint (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good ... (Score:5, Insightful)
An Immigrant's Perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
As an immigrant who came to the US under a K-1 fiance visa, DOMA has always seemed to me to be one of the very worst pieces of active Federal legislation.
Gay citizens have never been able to sponsor their partners for immigration as my now wife did for me. If she happened to be a guy, we would probably be in a different country right now, even though I came here so she could take her dream job. Make no mistake, DOMA was designed to keep gays out of the country. It should never have been made law, and it should have been repealed long ago. It will be a shameful part in the history of the United States.
Re:Good ... (Score:5, Insightful)
What I would like to see is a complete redefinition of what the government recognizes as a civil marriage, by removing the marriage part. Why can't I as a single guy, get the same advantages as a married couple with my roommates on our taxes & other social benefits? Or on the other end, what about those who are in a relationship with more than 1 person(ie polygamy)? Let me define my "family" as I see fit, and leave the government out of it entirely. Because as it stands, even after today, it's not fair.
Re:Good ... (Score:5, Insightful)
This must be one of the most misunderstood aspects of rights and the declaration of independence. The authors of the declaration of independence were not ambiguous about what they meant:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
1) There exist certain rights.
2) Their existence is self evident. It is self evident that you are born alive, you are born with the ability to choose, and you are born with the ability to decide the purpose of your choices. The government may become destructive to the ends, but all humans have these "rights" by virtue of our existence. All of these capabilities apply to anyone who is alive and sentient unless they are being purposely interfered with, and they are not necessarily exhaustive.
3) These rights are endows "by our creator". If you are not theist then they are endowed by virtue of your existence; if you were a protestant in 1776 then they were endowed by the grace of God.
4) They are unalienable. Why would we go to war to fight to regain something that is unalienable? We didn't. We fought to obtain government rights for the purpose of stopping the government from interfering with these "self evident" rights.
As others mention, life liberty and property were not rights believed granted by the government. However, other rights are secured in order to prevent the government from interfering with the self evident rights. Your freedom of speech, your right to bear arms, even the nature of the US Constitution as a whitelist of powers for the Federal Government as made explicit by the 9th amendment are not the unalienable "self evident" rights that the declaration was referring to. These are rights that were alienated, required a lot of debate in order to find evidence justifying their existence, and must be fought for to be retained.
Re:Good ... (Score:5, Insightful)
A thousand times NO. The word "Marriage" is NOT owned by any religious group. It was first and foremost a civil term. It was incorporated into a religious ceremony until the 1500's in Christian circles. Marriage was known in the bible but largely considered a private matter that didn't involve the church. Why should a civil union surrender to the demands of a religion that is usurping the word Marriage?
Attorney General didn't appeal (Score:5, Insightful)
Marriage is not about religion (Score:4, Insightful)
Why don't we just get the govt (state and feds) OUT of the marriage business?
I've wondered this for many years. No government at any level has any business creating financial incentives or any kind of restrictions on marriage at all. I see no reason why I should enjoy or be prohibited from any benefits (financial or otherwise) due to my marital status. If we want to say that marriage is a way to bundle certain estate benefits in order to save time then fine but marriage should not be required or incentivized for any of those very same benefits.
Where I live it is impossible for a man to own a house in just his own name if he is married. However a woman can own a house in her own name if she is married. I'm astonished that discriminatory laws like that remain in effect.
Marriage is a religious thing...if someone wants to get married, let them find a church to do it.
No it isn't about religion. I'm married but I'm definitely not religious nor was I married in, around or by a church. A marriage is a just a public acknowledgement of a private fact. I have someone in my life who I care very deeply about and so I made a public commitment to her. Has nothing to do with religion or children or financial benefits at all. You can get married and never involve a church at all. Power to conduct marriages is given by the state to individuals, kind of like being a notary. The fact that the individual so empowered happens to be a member of a church is incidental.
Re:Good ... (Score:4, Insightful)
So, you want different but equal? This group can legally join as a couple and we'll call it one thing, but this group will do the exact same thing and we'll call it something else to appease the first group?
That's just keeping the other group as second class citizens. That's not equality, that's still saying "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others". Equality is treating it all the same, not classing it as something different.
As long as people can get married in a civil ceremony not involving a church, pretending that marriage is a religious institution is inherently dishonest. And as long as two people who are too old to have kids can get married, you can't pretend that marriage is solely for a union to create children.
This act was solely about propping up a religious definition of marriage which has no bearing on how marriage works as a civil institution.
Re:Potayto/potatoh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:California (Score:5, Insightful)
The President has a sworn duty to defend the constitution. If the President believes a law in unconstitutional he is required to NOT defend it.
Marriage is not a religious activity (Score:4, Insightful)
Marriage is a religious activity, therefore how can the state discriminate on its basis?
Curious. I'm married and I've never been involved with any church in my entire life. Exactly how is it that I'm married if "marriage is a religious activity? Oh, that's right, churches have no legal power whatsoever aside from power delegated to individual members of the church by the state for that purpose.
You can be married without ever involving a religious institution. Marriage has nothing to do with religion aside from the fact that many marriages are officiated by members of churches.
Re:Good ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Potayto/potatoh (Score:5, Insightful)
The Bible says nothing of the sort. The Bible says your wife's servant should sire you an heir if your wife can't. If you wanted to defend a definition of marriage that says one man + one woman, the Bible is that last book I'd use.
Re:Good ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Interesting. So if congress passes the Patriot Act that makes the Executive's actions 'legal', you would still label the Executive as a Fuhrer for executing the laws that Congress passed?
Of course, if he was a better 'Fuhrer, you'd be baking in an oven somewhere no doubt...
Re:Good ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong. They are inalienable. When the government takes them away, they are overstepping their bounds, and becoming authoritarian despots.
That's how it works in Enlightenment philosophy (almost theology, really) at least, which is the basis of our country's law, and Nature's God.
Read up, bro.
Re:Potayto/potatoh (Score:5, Insightful)
If you really want to make concessions we should abolish all marriages and get the church out of the institution entirely.
Re:Good ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, let's cave to vocal minorities who believe in sky wizards, but are ok with me getting married simply because I need a tax break and like women.
Re:Good ... (Score:5, Insightful)
There are natural rights, and civil rights, and political rights and social rights. Some depend on the existence of a state, or on a particular social order.
but, I suppose that you have a particular view of things that you would like to be part of the indoctrination known as "civics class."
Re:Good ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, this would probably work because there are churches that are willing to marry same-sex couples. So they could be married, and have their civil union the same as different-sex couples.
Due to the overwhelming number of statutes at all levels of government, it would require an amendment to the United States Constitution to catch all of the usages. One of the general rules of conservatism (in the United States) is a reluctance to pass constitutional amendments at that level. I don't see social progressives (again using United States standards for the words) willing to cede the word "marriage" to religious institutions. That means that while this is a potential solution, it has a low chance of implementation.
The other argument being presented is that marriage shouldn't be religious at all, those trappings being added (according to others in this conversation) after Europeans started routinely coming to the Americas.
Re:Good ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate the word "rights"...
Where do they come from? They aren't natural, since in a wild state (no government, or enforcement of these rights) they wouldn't exist. Some of them didn't exist throughout much of human history, or only existed selectively to certain populations. I don't accept a concept of a creator, deist or otherwise, so they can't spring from that. Evolution and nature doesn't give a shit about us, or our rights, so it didn't come from there. This leaves one place where they could have come from; us.
Rights are a social construct, they only exist because we believe in them, and take action to enforce them. Rights are very much magic. One could argue that our constitution created said rights via social construct. The act of saying "these are your rights" and people believing it, made them so. If we all decided marriage or access to healthcare was a right, it would be tomorrow. I we all decided that freedom of speech or religion wasn't a right, it wouldn't be.
Also, if they are inalienable, and universal, then why do they only apply to American citizens, and only some sets of them, still, and only in circumstances not deemed special (terrorism)? Why shouldn't an illegal immigrant have the same rights as me, or a foreign national in another country when acted upon by US powers?
Re:Good ... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Constitution grants the government powers, not rights. Only people have rights. Governments are created by people who grant the government certain limited, well-defined powers over those rights, powers specifically listed, and no others.
The battle over the Bill of Rights was between two factions, one of whom feared the very act of listing some would make future politicians claim those were the only rights. The other faction feared that without it, future politicians would claim those rights, so transparently obvious to the Founding Fathers, did not actually exist.
Sadly, both factions were correct. Modern politicians on both sides claim the right exists if it supports their goals, and claim it doesn't if it gets in the way of their power grabs or pandering.
Re:Good ... (Score:4, Insightful)
The constitution is old though. The concept of states being the same as independent nations that are just joined together into a loose federation is obsolete, and it started the process of becoming obsolete almost immediately. We've had a couple centuries and a major war that has changed it all, and now we have a strong central government. The states we have today are really not much more than administrative districts in many ways. And that is not necessarily a bad thing.
For you programmers out there, the constitution is like a design document. That doesn't mean that the end product has to look exactly like what the design specified or that it is a moral failing if the end product has changed or that the design has changed. Even the "founding fathers" (a goofy term really) changed their minds, their idealistic views were adjusted once they were actually in power and figuring out how to govern pragmatically. The exact same people who wrote the constitution were also the ones who formed central banks. purchased the Louisiana territory, suspended liberties, and so forth. This is only a problem though if you assume that their original ideals were the only valid ones or that the constitution was divinely inspired or some other nonsense.
Re:Good ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good ... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not about the money, it's about being able to make the binding commitment to the relationship, and side-stepping the rules that benefit spouses (hospital visits for one, or another is gay partners that lived together for 20+ years and got "married" illegally a number of times are still "not family" when it comes to medical decisions or inheritance, more than one will has been invalidated because a "real" family member objected to a share left to an "illegal" partner, and more than one dying person was recussitated or not against their wishes because the doctors aren't legally allowed to take into account their partner's view of their wishes, when in conflict with another family member's).
Re: Good ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Bingo
An analogy I like to use is with our well known Miranda rights. Being told "you have the right to remain silent," isn't what grants me those rights. As a citizen of the US, I have those rights by default. A cop doesn't give those rights, he simply makes sure I know about them.
Likewise, neither the Constitution, the Declaration of Independance, nor any other document GRANT the unalienable rights of all men. They simply let us know that as a living, breathing human being, these are the rights we have.
Re:Potayto/potatoh (Score:4, Insightful)
The issue is that 'homosexuals' and their supporters want equality, the 'religious' want inequality and discrimination.
It's disingenuous to suggest that civil unions are the same as marriages. They are clearly a second-class union, otherwise the compromise of calling them 'civil unions' would never have been made to placate the 'religious'. It's "separate but equal" all over again.
You can't compromise on equality.