Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Overturns Defense of Marriage Act
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."
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.
Not to mention the case that brought it before the court is the perfect example of WHY we don't want the fed deciding who is and isn't allowed and the fact that the right wing has a fit, even though the case involved something they like to crow about? Just makes 'em hypocrites in my book.
For those that didn't see the details person was married for years, partner dies, fed takes nearly $400k away from the partner for taxes...that wouldn't have been levied if the partner had a penis. I'm sorry but that is fucked up, either the law is equal or its a sham and deciding to take a pile of money from a widow based on the sex of the corpse would be just as fucked up if they took it based on the skin color or religion of the corpse, that isn't right any way you slice it.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
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.
Everything is better with chainsaws.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The 9th amendment to the Constitution.
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.
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.
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.
...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
He effected a bored affect.