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."
I can now marry my pet gold fish, multiple people or a person of any age?
But I do not feel like this is relevant to the technical community. I'm not unhappy about the decision - but there are 'news' sites for 'just news' this is supposed to be 'news for nerds'... Not feeling the relevance.
Marriage gives you certain benefits - taxes, insurance rates, access rights, etc - that no other 'grouping' does.
You're never going to get government out of all of the things that marriage gives benefits to.
Rights are given by the government. If marriage gives you extra rights, then the government says what those are.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
So what you are saying is Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews leave their political views out of their unbiased shows? Or their bias is just more preferable to you?
There's a whole lot more rights laid out in the Constitution than just unalienable rights.
They're the rights your government gives you. Like if you can have a gun, or need to pay taxes, or can speak freely.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Under New Testament marriage, the husband promises to "love, honor and cherish", and the wife promises to "love, honor and obey". Under homosexual "marriage", before everyone in attendance engages in group sodomy on the altar, who promises to cherish, and who promises to obey; the "pitcher" or the "catcher"?
No, no, a thousand times no.
The constitution enumerates the powers of the government. IT DOES NOT ENUMERATE RIGHTS.
This kind of ignorance is why Fuhrer Obama gets away with being such a fascist prick.