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."

Comments

Good ...

[Anonymous Coward]

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. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

You should no more be able to deny rights to people because of their sexuality than you should be able to deny the right of blacks to vote and hold property.

That Scalia dissented means he's not looking at the right parts of the Constitution but is just being selective.

Believing one group should be able to dictate the rights of another group makes you no better than the Taliban.

Re:Good ...

[ganjadude]

I believe there is more to it than that.

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.

Re:Good ...

[bill_mcgonigle]

That Scalia dissented means he's not looking at the right parts of the Constitution but is just being selective.

I can't think of the last time I've heard of a Justice saying that he personally detests the ruling but 'this is what the law says'. They all seem to join or dissent with the ruling that they prefer and back themselves into an argument to support it, which is antithetical to the job description. Somebody please prove me wrong on that.

It says more about the wisdom of having nine final arbiters of truth than anything.

Re:Good ...

[hairyfeet]

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.

Re:Good ...

[Anonymous Coward]

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 ...

[NoImNotNineVolt]

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 ...

[geekoid]

"Rights are given by the government. "
Now there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the US Constitution if there ever was one.

Re:Good ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Rights are PROTECTED by the government, not GIVEN by the government.

Re:Good ...

[ganjadude]

rights are NOT given by the government first of all, we have the rights, the government just acknowledges them.

Having said that, those "rights" you listed should not be tied to "love" they should be tied to household. If they are tied to household rather than love, everyone is treated equal, we dont have some groups fighting others over special treatment, it really is the best way to move past this stupid quarrel

Re:Good ...

[Richard_at_work]

Does anyone else feel confused by the fact that there was 93 years between that famous paragraph being written down and codified in a document, and the actual laws coming into effect that guaranteed every citizen of the united states an equal vote?

I can think of at least one significant part of the US Constituion which definitely assumed that not everyone was created equal...

Re:Good ...

[gstoddart]

I for one want the government out of marriage. Let the churches deal with "marriage"

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 ...

[rickb928]

Re-read the Declaration of Independence, my friend. 'Self-evident' being the key phrase. Then re-read the Constitution.

Government can only limit your liberties. If this make no sense to you, especially in this debate, you may have missed some of the key points in our Constitution.

Re:Good ...

[dkleinsc]

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 ...

[Bugler412]

You need to read the constitution again. It does not "grant" rights, it delineates the more important ones. Check the tenth amendment.....

Re:Good ...

[JoeSchmoe999]

"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.

Re:Good ...

[MBGMorden]

I for one want the government out of marriage. Let the churches deal with "marriage"

Marriage isn't a solely religious concept. Atheists marry. As a matter of fact in the early days of the Church the Church didn't even want to perform marriages but they finally relented.

Saying that marriage should be "dealt with" by the churches is to try to force religion into areas where it need not exist.

Re:Good ...

[dpilot]

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".)

Re:Good ...

[MBGMorden]

Enumerated - but not granted. Its much akin to how a map lists and acknowledges places, but it doesn't create them.

Re:Good ...

[GrumpySteen]

I don't think God gives a shit about your 'right' to file a joint tax return.

Re:Good ...

[ganjadude]

as I said, I want equality for all. Meaning that all americans can have the same rights as a married couple. I am simply saying take the word married out of the equation, and everyone throws a shitfit. It almost seems as if equal rights are not what is sought after when you can offer the same exact thing with a different name and it isnt good enough.

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 ...

[cfulton]

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. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

I think the relevant portion of the constitution that you are looking for is this:

14th Amendment, section 1:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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."

It is called the equal protection clause. "The Declaration of Independence" is not a law and has zero barring on any decision of the Supreme Court.

Re:Good ...

[hairyfeet]

Because just 50 years ago your black butt would have been shot just for looking at a white woman and most states wouldn't have allowed you to marry her because of the skin tone?

I have an easy way i use to tell if a law smells bigoted, replace the group named in the law with black or Jew and if it sounds like something out of the 1930s? Well then its probably just good old fashioned bigotry.

Re:Good ...

[ganjadude]

Thank you for charting out what I said in a nice easy to read chart for people who get past the first few words I wrote. If you dont mind I will be copying this and editing it for use in future discussions.

Re:Good ...

[NatasRevol]

And yet it does take them away.

I'd say that makes them granted.

Re:Good ...

[NoImNotNineVolt]

That God doesn't give a shit about my right to file a joint tax return has no bearing on the fact that the United States government doesn't grant rights to the citizenry. That's an inherently un-American way of looking at rights, and while it's an entirely reasonable (that is, internally consistent) worldview to espouse, it's sad to see it expressed by an American. This country was wrested from England's grip at the cost of many lives over this very issue, and I feel that we have failed in our duty to honor these men's sacrifice every time I hear an uneducated American spouting off about the rights they are given by the government. I cite the second sentence of the Declaration of Independence as my reference.

Re:Good ...

[NatasRevol]

Exactly what I was thinking.

Yes, the founding fathers were only listing exceptions that the government can step on our rights.

But today, you have to have explicit approval of the government to do things.

Re:Good ...

[Anonymous Coward]

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 ...

[Nemesisghost]

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 ...

[EuclideanSilence]

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 ...

[DJRumpy]

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?

Re:Good ...

[gstoddart]

as I said, I want equality for all ... it almost seems as if equal rights are not what is sought after when you can offer the same exact thing with a different name and it isnt good enough.

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:Good ...

[Vaphell]

true that. Half of the problem with 'progressive' forms of marriage is that they go against the strict definition found in the bible and religious conservative people simply won't swallow it, EVER. Who would have thought that seemingly openminded progressives are so boneheaded that they prefer to wage ideological wars instead of getting shit done.
Drop the fucking label and the resistance drops because 'bbbut God said something else' won't have a leg to stand on, but saying 'these people are taxpayers too so fuck off' will still work.

Re:Good ...

[ganjadude]

well yes and no. im saying strip the term "marriage" for the legal world and replace it with "civil union" for ALL gay or straight. Leave the word marriage to the churches. or other groups. in other words, make "civil union" the legal definition of marriage as far as the government is concerned. than everyone should be happy. If people still are not happy with that, that just tells me there ar eother motives behind them.

Re:Good ...

[alfredo]

Gay citizens are no different than Baptist citizens other than Baptist weren't born Baptist. Religion is a lifestyle choice, being gay is not. My sister chose to switch from Baptist to Catholic, my sister in law didn't choose to be gay.

Re:Good ...

[EuclideanSilence]

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:Good ...

[clarkkent09]

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 ...

[alva_edison]

...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 ...

[DJRumpy]

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 ...

[ImprovOmega]

As I understand it that's how Mexico handles it. You register your marriage license with the state and they don't give a flying all-frig about who you're being joined to (limit two in a marriage though), but if you want to get married by the Catholic church in accordance with your religious beliefs, well you have to follow the Catholic rules on that. It always made more sense to me for that to be the way it was handled in the U.S. - fix the label, call everything a civil union and if you want it stamped as a marriage then let the church do that. Though I guess "will you civil union me" doesn't have the same ring to it though.

Re:Good ...

[Torodung]

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:Good ...

[Reverand Dave]

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:Good ...

[ganjadude]

haha im not even religious. I just am sick of the arguing over something that I find to be a pointless argument when we have REAL problems in our country to worry about

Re:Good ...

[zieroh]

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.

What possible point does this serve? How does splitting the the institution of marriage into two different categories that are supposedly equal serve any point at all?

Oh, right... it keeps the religious nutjobs (who are laboring under the opinion that they "own" the term marriage) from having to fret and worry that their "institution" (which was never actually theirs to begin with) is being eroded.

Fuck 'em. Seriously. Your "workaround" is a thinly-disguised attempt at putting the veneer of reason on what can only be described as irrational. It won't work.

Re:Good ...

[Reverand Dave]

Wouldn't that be great, just abolish marriage as a whole. Cohabitation is the ultimate goal. This is pretty apparent in the tax code. I'm married (technically) but I pay my taxes like I'm single and it doesn't make a fucking bit of difference.

Re:Good ...

[FictionPimp]

Why does the church get a monopoly on what is a marriage? We have secular marriage now and have had it for generations, so you want to take away my right as a straight male atheist to get married?

The church should be out of the the whole fucking thing. If they want to do 'weddings' let them, but those should hold no legal standing. Let the state do civil unions or marriages or blow jobs of convenience or whatever they want to call them.

I see no reason to not just call it marriage except to keep a bunch of people who believe in fairy tales happy.

Re:Good ...

[Jeremy Erwin]

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 ...

[alva_edison]

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 ...

[interkin3tic]

I think your idea has merit, but lets save that for another time if for no other reason than to give the far right social regressives less to get worked up into a frenzy about. For years they've been screaming "What's next? Marrying a dog?!? SATAN WORSHIPING!?!?!?" Lets keep the focus on the fact that they're opposing love most people can relate to, THEN try to get platonic and polygametic relationships covered. Jumping to it right now will make them more sure they're right, that we're on a slippery slope to people marrying their dogs and bringing the end of times. Or whatever.

Re:Good ...

[TCQuad]

That Scalia dissented means he's not looking at the right parts of the Constitution but is just being selective.

The day after SCotUS overruled the Voting Rights Act, Scalia complained that overturning DOMA "is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people's Representatives in Congress and the Executive". I think you're being kind when you only label his arguments "selective".

Re:Good ...

[keytoe]

I have an easy way i use to tell if a law smells bigoted, replace the group named in the law with black or Jew and if it sounds like something out of the 1930s? Well then its probably just good old fashioned bigotry.

Force anyone supporting such laws to restate them in the form: "I think the government should forcibly remove the following rights I enjoy from <insert target group here> because...". No matter what comes after the 'because', that statement should cause revulsion in everyone if the target group is anything other than 'legally convicted criminals'.

Re:Good ...

[Omestes]

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 ...

[Quila]

Close, but you are still off. The Constitution grants the government rights.

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 ...

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

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 ...

[Entropius]

Marriage should not give you those rights. Domestic partnership should give you those rights. (And insurance rates are not granted by government; they are set by insurers as they see fit.)

Let me form a domestic partnership with whoever I wish, so long as we meet some reasonable standard (two or three brothers living together for years ought to qualify, for instance). That's government's business.

Who I fall in love with and who I fuck and what I call these relationships are my business and society's business, not government's.

Re:Good ...

[drakaan]

The problem has never been with the union that legal marriage codifies, the problem has always been with a disagreement over the definition of the word. The federal government shouldn't have ever been saying that they viewed people as married. They should have been recording and notarizing their unions in order to give both parties the rights that a civil union is meant to convey.

Unfortunately, nobody seemed to want the federal government to start talking about civil unions, so now the federal government has adopted the second of two equally incorrect (incorrect because the federal government should not be allowed to opine on things related to sexual preference between consenting adults) stances on marriage.

In short, previously they fucked things up in one direction, and now they've done the same thing in the other direction. The federal judiciary, legislature, or executive branch saying "hey, marriage is man plus woman" is not more incorrect than them saying "hey, marriage is man plus man or man plus woman or woman plus woman". They should say "government will not define marriage in any way. we will recognize all unions of two persons previously legally defined as marriage as civil unions, which will be afforded the same rights and protections between consenting adults as what was once called marriage".

Re:Good ...

[Darinbob]

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 ...

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

I read a book from the 1960s once that discussed this in the context of the English Parliament.

The inability to permanently give up your freedom (as in the old question as to whether you can sell yourself into slavery) should not be interpreted as a paternalistic rule, but rather as the essence of inalienability. You simply cannot give up a right and expect government enfforcement of stripping that right.

You could contract to a slavelike relationship, but if you violated it, it would be a civil contractual violation. Government would have no authority to gather you up and send you back.

Re:Good ...

[EuclideanSilence]

Just because some inbred assholes think they are divine (kings and queens) does not make them better than you or give them power over you.

And yet today we decide citizenship by what family you come from and where you are born, instead of where you live and how you live. With regards to "divine right", we haven't come as far as people like to pretend.

Re:Good ...

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Marriage has long since ceased to be a purely religious institution, and that's what this ruling is addressing.

Technically, the concept of marriage predates religion. Religion just pretends they created it.

Re:Good ...

[DrGamez]

You're going to make this whole debate a lot less fun if you keep actually looking up facts and stuff.

Re:Good ...

[Magius_AR]

I disagree with DOMA, and support same sex marriage, but this Supreme Court decision boggles me. "Marriage" from a civil standpoint carries various civil benefits (taxes, etc). The federal government is well within their rights to define it. It has nothing to do with "equal protection". Unless a white male can use "equal protection" to strike down affirmative action laws. Or allow felons to demand voting rights. Or declaring income taxes unconstitutional because everyone doesn't pay the same amount. "Equal protection" is being seriously misconstrued in this case. DOMA may have been shitty legislation, but it was constitutional.

Re:Good ...

[danbert8]

Except dogs can't enter into legally binding contracts. I'd say let's just jump to letting consenting adults enact whatever household contract they want to and have any government benefits be for a "household" not a "married couple".

Re:Good ...

[AK Marc]

No, they really just want the civil union. One of the biggest complaints is hospitals with "family only" ICU policies, where your mother or spouse can sit with you and hold your hand while you lay dying, but your gay partner would have to wait in the other room. The property laws do simplify things greatly. If trusts weren't nearly outlawed because they were so heavily abused for tax evasion, it wouldn't be so hard to have a joint trust and merge funds that way, but it's hard to merge finances in the way a marriage does. The tax benefits of marriage (the "tax penalty") is just a bonus, because many would still get married if they were in the penalty group, rather than benefit group.

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 ...

[ubermiester]

You realize that the main decision involved a law called "The Defense of Marriage Act" which disallowed same-sex "civil unions" from receiving the same benefits as "traditional" marriage, right? This was not about the word "marriage" or who gets to decide what it means. This was about exactly the benefits you are talking about. Social conservatives may be crazy but they are not dumb. They know that marriage as it relates to the government is inextricably tied to the benefits it grants, and that halting the very kind of legal recognition you outline is far more important to their goal of demonizing and marginalizing same-sex relationships than the word chosen to define these benefits. Your "simple workaround" implies that the fight to decide exactly who gets the benefits of civil unions/marriage has nothing to do with bigotry. I am sorry to say that such notions are woefully naive.

Re:Good ...

[Sabriel]

Hmm. Why shouldn't felons have voting rights? If you're putting so many people behind bars that their (in)ability to exercise their political preferences at the polling booth could change the outcome, politics are already involved, and if you're not, then such denial is meaningless and arbitrary and thus a sign of bad legislation (or unhealthy ambitions).

Re:Good ...

[dryeo]

The American colonists were also Englishmen. The first time a King tried that divine shit, the English took him out back and chopped of his head. When his grandson tried the same shit a hundred years before the American Constitution they were more civilized, waited till he left town and declared he'd quit and invited someone from a democratic background and his wife to take over if they agreed to a Bill of Rights (Bill of Rights of 1689)
The American Founding Fathers were pissed that the King tried to say that everyone was equal, even the American Indian (Royal Proclamation of 1763 IIRC) and even the worst, the English courts were granting habeus corpus to black slaves. As the American Founding Fathers believed that only some people had rights and others were for buying and owning, they didn't like the idea that everyone had Rights, just the chosen.

Re: Good ...

[jxander]

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:Good ...

[adamstew]

Except if you actually analyze what the tax brackets are, it's not really a tax break. And in a lot of cases it's a tax PENALTY.

Let's do a couple basic examples:

Couple 1: Wife earns $40,000 a year. Husband earns $40,000 a year. If they weren't married and had to file separately, they would each pay $5,928.75 in taxes on their individually filed tax returns. This is a total of $11,857.50. If they were married, their $80,000 of joint income would yield a total tax of $11,857.50 for their jointly filed tax return.

Couple 2: Wife earns nothing, stay at home spouse. Husband earns $80,000 a year. If they weren't married and had to file separately, the wife would pay $0 in taxes. The husband would pay $15,928.75 in taxes. This is a total of $15,928.75 in taxes. If they were married, their $80,000 of joint income would yield a total tax of $11,857.50 for their jointly filed tax return.

Couple 3: Husband works a part time job to help out around the house, earns $25,000 a year. Wife earns $55,000 a year. If they weren't married and had to file separately, the wife would pay $9,678.75 in taxes. The husband would pay $3,303.75 in taxes. This is a total of $12,982.50 in taxes. If they were married, their $80,000 of joint income would yield a total tax of $11,857.50 for their jointly filed tax return.

Couple 4: Wife and husband both earn $450,000 a year... They're both CEOs! If they weren't married and had to file separately, they would each pay $125,268.50 in taxes on their individually filed tax returns. This is a total of $250,537.00. If they were married, their $900,000 of joint income would yield a total tax of $265,268.50.

(Source, US tax brackets for 2013 on earned income, and some basic excel skills)

So let's analyze...

Couple 1, it makes absolutely no difference whether they are married are not. They will each pay the same tax no matter what.
Couple 2, They clearly get a benefit in their taxes from filing jointly. However, they are earning the same amount of money as couple 1 and paying the same amount in taxes as couple 1, IF they are married. They would pay MORE if they weren't married.
Couple 3, Pretty much the same as couple 2, however, the benefit to filing jointly isn't as great.
Couple 4, They actually get a tax PENALTY because they are married. If they weren't married, they would pay a combined tax of $250,537. But by getting married, they pay a combined tax of $265.268.50. It's almost a $15,000 penalty!

The above examples do assume there are no deductions and other such tax tricks that would lower your overall taxable income.

The basic idea behind filing jointly when you're married is that you are able to pool your tax brackets. In general, it will make zero difference if you are both earning relatively equal pay. However, if one person is earning significantly more (or is earning ALL of the income), then you can divide all of the income you earn equally between both of your two tax brackets. The idea being is that it's not the husband's money or the wife's money... it's BOTH of their money, regardless of who actually earned it.

That logic does break down when you start to get in to the higher tax brackets. If you earn gobs of money each year, then you can actually pay higher taxes by getting married.

Re:Good ...

[metrix007]

I think you've missed the point of the constitution and the revolution. Whether ot not rights are inalienable or not is not what the war was over.

For what it's worth, it's ridiculous to say that rights exist without government. Rights need to be enforced and you need an enforcing body. Without an enforcing body, you have no rights.

Re:Good ...

[sumdumass]

Here is the problem. The constitution has built within itself a way to change it. There are two ways to change it, it is designed to be changed as needed if needed. There have only been two changes that could have been unconstitutional to make and the time limits on them have long expired.

So if you truly believe the constitution is out dated, then change it, not ignore it. As a document, it is the only thing keeping the government in check even though it tends to want to ignore it or creativly construe it. This entire ignoring parts you disagree with means they will ignore parts you likely agree with. Massive data collections of the population and watching all your electronic and telephone communications is probably one of them. The very same argument you made about it being old and outdated can be made about the first amendment, about the 4th and 5th amendments or anything else in it.

It is a moral failing if we change the constitution without going through the process of changing the constitution. The country will always be divided when this happens.

What now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Say you have a same-sex marriage in a state that recognizes it or a country that recognizes it. Now you move to Alabama. Are you unmarried? And can Alabama still discriminate against your marriage? Or does this just apply to the federal government?

Re:What now?

[gstoddart]

Or does this just apply to the federal government?

I believe this particular ruling only covers DOMA ... they are supposed to release other decisions which might weigh in on individual state bans.

Re:What now?

[Rich0]

Say you have a same-sex marriage in a state that recognizes it or a country that recognizes it. Now you move to Alabama. Are you unmarried? And can Alabama still discriminate against your marriage? Or does this just apply to the federal government?

Seems like the Full Faith and Credit clause should apply:
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Re:What now?

[Jarmihi]

You are correct. Civil marriage is licensed by the state, and if the state you're in will not recognize a license from another state, you are not entitled to the benefits in that state.

Re:What now?

[h4rr4r]

So states have the right to deprive people of rights?

Can Alabama decide to have slaves again? Can they stop inter racial marriage?

Re:What now?

[operagost]

Ideally, that's what would happen. But we all know that the states selectively decide this: drivers' licenses are accepted, but firearm permits usually are not. This is especially amusing when you consider that politicians constantly remind us that driving is a privilege, while it's understood by most that keeping and bearing arms is a right (though what this means is subject to whim^H^H^H^H interpretation).

Re:What now?

[dainbug]

But wouldn't the commerce clause come into play where currency, no tariffs and licenses carry across state borders?

Re:What now?

[h4rr4r]

If they recognize other marriages from that state, they should not be able to pick and choose.

Re:What now?

[SJHillman]

I imagine driver licenses work much the same. If New Jersey decides everybody gets a license when they turn 18 even if they haven't taken any written or practical test, then other states can choose not to accept NJ driving licenses as valid. Thus if you got caught with a NJ license in another state, they could charge you as driving without a license.

**NOTE: As far as I know, New Jersey does not just give everyone a license at 18. They have to find it in a Crackerjack box first.

Re:What now?

[LocalH]

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:What now?

[Antipater]

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?

[ganjadude]

I prefer to go back to the intent of the country. where if it is not EXPLICITLY written in the constitution, than the federal government has no say whatsoever and it is a states right. The 10th amendment is pretty clear.

Re:What now?

[Antipater]

Or does this just apply to the federal government?

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:What now?

[operagost]

Actually, NJ is one of the more oppressive states IRT drivers' licenses. For one, you have to be 16 to even get a permit. Second, you have to have it for six months AND be at least 17 before you can even take the test. Third, your observer while you're under permit can't just be a legal adult: they have to be 21 (age discrimination) and have been a licensed driver for at least three years (understandable). Fourth, even once you have a PROBATIONARY license, which you must have for a YEAR before you get a real one, you CAN'T have anyone except family in the car EVEN IF YOU ARE AN 18 YEAR OLD LEGAL ADULT (age discrimination again)-- don't know what the environmental lobby thinks of this obvious detriment to carpooling. Fifth, the state is fond of using the license as a carrot for everything; in other words, there are about 90 different things a young person could screw up with that could delay getting their license: drinking under 21, a miscellaneous juvenile incident, mouthed off to a cop, etc.

And people wonder why I moved to Pennsylvania 17 years ago.

Re:What now?

[Calydor]

for six months AND be at least 17 before you can even take the test.

have to be 21 (age discrimination) and have been a licensed driver for at least three years (understandable).

I'm sorry, what's 17.5+3? Sounds like 21 is that result rounded up.

Funny results reporting

[smooth wombat]

Just for the sake of shits and giggles, I took screenshots of the three big cable networks (CNN, Fox and MSNBC) about half an hour ago when the first notice came out. I wanted to see how each would report on the announcement.

As predicted, CNN and NBC had nice big, red banners claiming the Supreme Court had a ruling and results would be forthcoming.

Fox, on the other hand, had no notice except for a small box on the right side of their web site which, if you didn't know what to look for, you would have missed.

Now, half an hour later, the Fox headline rules the decision is a victory for gay marriage, NOT that the law was ruled unconstitutional.

So the next time someone whines about the liberal bias in the media, kindly remind them of the twisting of facts by the conservative media.

NOTE: I have a moderate leaning though I do have positions which some might consider on the far side of both political spectrums so this isn't about one or the other. Just the hypocrisy of those who claim bias.

Re:Funny results reporting

[jaymz666]

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

[WilyCoder]

Sure, if you find propaganda to be entertaining.

Re:Funny results reporting

[csumpi]

I don't get it. How is saying that this was a victory for gay marriage some sort of twisting the news? It _is_ a victory for gay marriage. That's what the whole thing was about. In fact it sounds like they gave you more info, because what does "DOMA ruled unconstitutional" mean to most people?

A twist would've been FOX saying that the ruling hurts traditional family values. Or that we are all going to die.

Re:Funny results reporting

[Nidi62]

To be fair, CNN says nothing about the ruling in regards to constitutionality either, just their breaking news banner and the artilce title which both state "victory for gay marriage". So it's not just Fox News.

Re:Funny results reporting

[SuricouRaven]

I do.

I'm going to have a lot of fun over the next week reading a lot of biased reports, laughing at the ridiculous hyperbole and mocking the ignorance behind it.

Re:Funny results reporting

[operagost]

Couldn't you just as easily show this as bias toward the "left" by MSNBC and CNN? Especially since MSNBC's headline also contains "Historic win for gay marriage" and doesn't refer to the Constitution at all?

By the way, I just checked FoxNews.com and what you say is no longer correct. The headline is up there. So what you're claiming is that if a website doesn't respond super-quickly and in the manner that you demand, they're biased?

Your logic needs a little work.

Re:Funny results reporting

[s.petry]

I hate to break the news to you (intentional pun?) but it's not just Fox twisting facts. Every major news agency, referred to as MSM (Main Stream Media) does the exact same thing. This includes ABC, CNN, NBC and FOX in all forms (I.E. MSNBC). The supreme court ruling that news is entertainment impacted all MSM stations, and entrenched their purpose as propaganda instead of public service journalists.

Thankfully, there are still real journalists at work. You need to seek them out and read their articles, but they are there. The difference between MSM's now is really that some may give you just enough information to make them look unbiased. The brainwashing tactics don't change though, nor does the propaganda messages they pound the public with.

Re:Funny results reporting

[SJHillman]

So what you're saying is that two sites said "We Don't Have Any News Yet, But We Will Later"?

Re:Funny results reporting

[geekoid]

Because with their base, saying it that way riles them up. Telling them its a constitutional victory does not. Fox 'news' spine everything to make it look like the government is taking everything away, including FOXs LARGE religious viewership religion.

This is, of course, bullshit. Many people see this as an attack on their religious beliefs.
FOX is smart enough to set the stage and let their viewers and pundits take it from their.

Yes I know it sounds tin foil hatty. I don't like that either, but when you compare what the AP writed and how FOX changes the story, I can't see any other conclusion.

So now that they can't use it as a weapon anymore

[Qzukk]

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?

Re:NOT News For Nerds

[jaymz666]

It IS stuff that matters!

"Right" and "Left" change places yet again

[Cajun Hell]

The "Left" once again upholds limited central government and states' rights. The "Right" once again argues (unsuccessfully) for central planning taking a larger role for the "common good" at the expense of individual liberty and states' rights to govern and set their own policies.

Three cheers for the Left (i.e. conservatives) winning again!

Re:"Right" and "Left" change places yet again

[Phreakiture]

Quite frequently, the conservative line is that they are in favour of limiting government. Interestingly enough, this line of argument goes away the second that they want the government to do something, like limiting abortion or marriage.

Here are a couple of salient quotes from conservatives:

"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. " -Ronald Reagan

"As a registered conservative, this troubles me because I believe in limited government and greater freedom for all Americans." -Sean Hannity

Re:"Right" and "Left" change places yet again

[TheNastyInThePasty]

It's not a left/right axis. There is also an up/down axis. Left/Right is economic freedom, Up/Down is social freedom. Being up on the social freedom axis means you support the government staying out of your bedroom. Being right on the economic freedom means you support the government staying out of how you run your business. In this way, the Republicans are Down/Right, the Democrats are Left/Up, Libertarians are Up/Right (I'm working from an American central point here, not a world center).

Good! The US should stay out of it.

[jonnythan]

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.

You're right

[arcite]

Most readers of Slashdot are introverted, basement dwelling, pale skinned, nocturnal beasts - the prospect of a spouse who makes them get a haircut, put out the trash, and stop dressing like a slob, is probably the most horrible thing imaginable! Run away!

Re:Shocking, antidisestablishmentarianism .

[jaymz666]

A wedding may be a religious ceremony. Weddings happen without religion and happened long before religion.
Marriages too.

Marriage is none of the government's business

[schwit1]

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.

The Problem here is not marriage

[josephtd]

Again we see that the Courts are saying that citizen groups do not have standing to support laws placed on the books by their elected officials. Much as Obama refused to defend DOMA, the CA AG and Governor decided not to defend a duly passed statue. This is beyond the pale. IF you don't like a law, get it changed through the process outlined in the Federal and most State Constitutions. This imperial head of state nonsense must end. For the record, I have no objection to the outcome, I just feel there is too much wrong with the way these outcomes are coming about these days. You have no moral standing to complain about FISA, the NSA or the Patriot Act if you defend the way the executive branch in CA and the US acted and the manner SCOTUS came to this ruling.

Re:The Problem here is not marriage

[PPH]

What our current system does is place civil rights above majority or mob rule. It doesn't matter if you can muster 51% to pass a law either through your legislature or a citizen's initiative.

Obama refused to defend DOMA because he judged that this law wouldn't stand a SCOTUS test and he didn't want to waste time and money on useless legal action that would be overturned. It appears that he judged correctly.

Re:The Problem here is not marriage

[Anonymous Psychopath]

At first I felt the same way you did, that the California Prop 8 case set a precedent that citizens could not bring challenges. That isn't what happened though; the citizens were unable to demonstrate that they were damaged, except in a hypothetical sense, and since they were not harmed they had no basis to a challenge. If, in the future, they are able to show how gay marriage has harmed them, they could appeal again.

Re:Sorry

[Nidi62]

Nerds can't have an interest in their domestic politics? This is, after all, an American oriented site.

Only section 3: Section 2 still stands.

[luciano.moretti]

Section 2 still stands, allowing states to not recognize same-sex marriages from other states. IMO a state with Same-sex marriage should pass a law where they don't recognize marriages from states that define marriage differently (AKA as "Between a man and a woman") to force the issue. Worst case you get a lot of new marriage license income as couples have to get remarried for tax/legal reasons.

Re:Stuff that matters.

[fyngyrz]

It's news for everybody, including nerds. I'm straight, and I was pleased to see it here. You are free to not read any story that you're not interested in. For you to advocate kicking stories off smacks of interest -- not disinterest. Perhaps a little examination of your own motives is in order.

Re:So now that they can't use it as a weapon anymo

[NonUniqueNickname]

Congratulations!
JESUSBUTTPLUG.COM
is available. Snap it up before someone else does.

Just putting it out there...

Re:Shocking, antidisestablishmentarianism .

[SJHillman]

You ever been to a wedding? That marriage certificate thing they have to sign, and the guy who says "By the power vested in me by the state of..."? That's the civil aspect of it. It just happens to be something where, traditionally, we combine civil and religious all in one big party. Plenty of people get married with zero religion involve. And while it's possible to have a purely religious marriage, it holds no civil rights so you never see it done because it's not recognized outside of the church.

Re:It's about destroying the family

[SJHillman]

Obamacare has many parts to it, but as with many things (such as interstates), it's a trade off. The state agrees to how the fed wants something done and in exchange, the fed gives it a big ol' wad of cash.

It's entirely possible for a state to build their section of an interstate differently... but then the fed won't give them any money for it. There's been a few cases of interstates not built to the fed spec and, as a result, the state has to pay for it entirely.

You Don't Know What You're Talking About

[eldavojohn]

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.

You clearly have not been following this issue. This wasn't just about a marriage certificate. This was also about the thousand or so federal laws that applied only to heterosexual couples now also applying to homosexual couples that are married.

Now they can truly be viewed as equal couples in the eyes of the federal government and, most importantly, receive the same exact treatment -- good or bad -- in the federal legislation for married couples.

The only thing banning the marriage certificate does is punish them for being gay.

What rock have you been living under for the past decade?

Simple solution to this BS debate

[moeinvt]

Voluntary relationships between consenting adults are none of the government's F****** business!

It should be totally illegal for the government to discriminate against or give preferential treatment to anyone (including for tax or government benefit purposes) based on their personal relationships. Single people, married people, polygamists, homosexuals, heterosexuals or whomever, should all be EQUAL under the law.

Re:Simple solution to this BS debate

[Sarius64]

Great, I assume we'll see your support for overturning 100+ years of discrimination against polygamists and the restoration (with interest) of the properties confiscated from them by the state and federal governments?

Lawrence v. Texas

[J'raxis]

And today is exactly ten years since SCOTUS issued its Lawrence v. Texas ruling, another landmark case in getting the government out of people's bedrooms.

"marriage" vs "civil union"

[Chirs]

It would be straightforward to have "marriage" be separate from "legally joined in the eyes of the state"

Re:Distracts from unlimited surveillance

[jbeaupre]

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that homosexuals, especially married ones, get very few abortions. Which should make conservatives happy.

Re:return

[cayenne8]

Why don't we just get the govt (state and feds) OUT of the marriage business?

Marriage is a religious thing...if someone wants to get married, let them find a church to do it.

If any 2 (or more I suppose) people want to join into some type of civil agreement/contract, then the state and feds can help with that.

The civil union/contract should allow for wills, property sharing, etc.

That should solve the problems, no?

And IMHO, why should someone get a tax break if they are married or in some type of civil union?

And please don't get into the "it encourages marriage and kids" thing. People are gonna pair bond without govt subsidies...people like to fuck, they will and that will result in kids (at least for hetero couples).

I doubt anyone was on the brink of deciding to pledge their life to someone, or fuck without protection, and were persuaded by "You'll get a tax break for that".

Re:Potayto/potatoh

[Vaphell]

because in the west marriage is of christian origins and that makes religious nuts nervous. Whenever you try to call relationship of gays, lesbians or polyamoric peeps a marriage, the bible alert goes off: "bible says marriage is 1man+1woman! error! error!" and that gets you nowhere in a country split roughly in half.
Why would you care about label when it's the perks you are after (inheritance, visitations in hospitals, etc)?

Re:From a citizen's standpoint

[PraiseBob]

Harm to society shouldn't trump freedom. If it did, then tobacco, alcohol, gambling, high fructose corn syrup & reality TV would all be banned.

An Immigrant's Perspective

[TheSpoom]

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.

Attorney General didn't appeal

[Cutting_Crew]

I see where the gay marriage ban in California will be overturned because the found that the people didnt have the right to appeal to a lower court. Why did the people do this? Because the AG refused to appeal because he didn't like the gay marriage ban. So what kind of precedent does this set? If the officials of the state don't appeal a ruling then the citizens are pretty much screwed? What kind of crap is that?

Re:Attorney General didn't appeal

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Attorney General didn't appeal

[slimjim8094]

The alternative is forcing the AG to appeal everything all the way up, which is pretty messed up too. It went to court, the state defended, and they lost - you want to require them to fight tooth-and-nail over something they don't agree with? We don't have a democracy, we have a republic - the entire point is so that a group of splenic citizens can't become a dictator. It's literally one of the biggest reasons we elect people to positions with some autonomy is so they can refuse ill-conceived requests of the majority. And that's what happened here.

Marriage is not about religion

[sjbe]

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:So now that they can't use it as a weapon anymo

[geekoid]

Why blaspheme when you can buttblastpheme?

Re:Potayto/potatoh

[ganjadude]

true but on the flip side of the coin. when "civil unions rights" were offered in some places to homosexuals, that wasnt "good enough" for them, even though it gave them the exact same rights just under a different word. So its not just the religious who have an issue here.

Re:California

[frnic]

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

[sjbe]

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:Potayto/potatoh

[SoupGuru]

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:Potayto/potatoh

[ImprovOmega]

The Bible says your wife's servant should sire you an heir if your wife can't.

No it doesn't and the consequences for Abraham doing that were pretty damaging to the Jewish people down through history. Modern day Arabs trace their lineage back to Ishmael and the debate over who are the "true sons" of Abraham has been one of the most fracturing ideological dichotomies in the present day. This split, you will note, is an actual fact regardless of whether or not you acknowledge the underlying story as true or not. In either case I don't think any of the Abrahamic religions would claim that "your wife's servant should sire you an heir if your wife can't" is the moral to be taken from that story.

Re:Potayto/potatoh

[ganjadude]

except that is has. at least in NY 2 gay people could get the same rights as a married couple simply by living together for XX amount of years. in fact they dont even have to be gay they just have to live together for XX years to get the same rights as a married couple. so yes, at least around me this was an option that the gay crowd did not find to be acceptable.

Re:Potayto/potatoh

[Reverand Dave]

Marriage has about as much to do with christianity as toilet paper does to taking a shit. People were shitting long before it's invent and won't stop when it goes out of style.

If you really want to make concessions we should abolish all marriages and get the church out of the institution entirely.

Re:Potayto/potatoh

[SomeKDEUser]

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:Potayto/potatoh

[cfulton]

How many wives did David have again?

"Charter of negative liberties"

[GPS Pilot]

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 are correct, and that is why our current president dislikes the Constitution. In complaining that the Constitution is "a charter of negative liberties," he expresses a goal that's completely at odds with the Founders’ vision.

Re:Potayto/potatoh

[radio4fan]

when "civil unions rights" were offered in some places to homosexuals, that wasnt "good enough" for them, even though it gave them the exact same rights just under a different word. So its not just the religious who have an issue here.

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.