Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Supreme Court Overturns Defense of Marriage Act

Posted by timothy on from the totally-bringing-on-the-apocalypse dept.

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."

88 of 1,073 comments (clear)

  1. Good ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Good ... by ganjadude · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    2. Re:Good ... by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.
    3. Re:Good ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Rights are given by the government. If marriage gives you extra rights, then the government says what those are.

      Rights are given by the government? You need to take a civics class.

    4. Re:Good ... by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Rights are given by the government.

      Somebody seems unfamiliar with the basis of the government of the USA. Something about people being endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. If I remember correctly, the government is not my creator.

      Your view on rights is not compatible with the United States.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    5. Re:Good ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    6. Re:Good ... by ganjadude · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    7. Re:Good ... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    8. Re:Good ... by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I also think that if 2 people simply live together they should get the same rights, "love" should never be the deciding factor when it comes to giving tax breaks to people or even worse tax money to people.

      Of course, there are plenty of people who are married that aren't in love. I mean, how many May-December romances are actually about love, rather than the May half of the couple getting a ton of cash by the time they're 40 while the December half gets some sex and nursing in their old age? And there are also plenty of couples that are married and remain together solely to prevent the kids from living through a divorce. And in some subcultures in the US there are still arranged marriages. And there are some college friends of mine who weren't in love at all but were legally married because they could get better financial aid that way.

      I agree with your basic premise though. What the government should be doing is providing a way to designate any other person as legally a part of your family, for medical decision-making, inheritance, etc, without any assumptions about what the nature of that relationship actually is. For example, my grandmother lived with a long-time friend of hers for about 20 years, and to the best of my knowledge weren't lovers, but that friendship was at least as important to them as their marriages had been.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    9. Re:Good ... by Bugler412 · · Score: 4, Informative

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

    10. Re:Good ... by JoeSchmoe999 · · Score: 5, Informative

      "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.
    11. Re:Good ... by dpilot · · Score: 4, Informative

      Simple workaround:

      1 - The State is out of the marriage business, and into the business of Civil Unions. Those pieces of State-respected status and benefits are conferred upon Civil Unions.
      2 - Existing Marriages are grandfathered into Civil Union status.
      3 - Secular / State-run ceremonies confer a Civil Union.
      4 - Marriage becomes an institution of the Church, but at the same time as a "duly qualified" agent of the Church grants a Marriage, a Civil Union is granted as well.

      Mostly transparent, probably annoys people on both sides equally.

      As for "love", I think what we're looking for is a stable long-term situation. I suspect long-term stability is not possible without some definition of "love" being present. (Respect is certainly part of that mix, a component of that definition of "love".)

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    12. Re:Good ... by MBGMorden · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    13. Re:Good ... by ganjadude · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    14. Re:Good ... by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    15. Re:Good ... by NatasRevol · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And yet it does take them away.

      I'd say that makes them granted.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    16. Re:Good ... by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    17. Re:Good ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Close, but you are still off. The Constitution grants the government rights. All others are left by default to the people and the States. In fact, it was argued that the Bill of Rights was redundant since common law precedent already included those items. Nonetheless, people were worried and they were explicitly written out, as well as the fact that all rights not given to the government by the Constitution (the 9th & 10th Amendments).

      Effectively, the US Constitution is a negative constitution. Most constitutions enumerate rights with a list, like the UN Declaration of Rights. The US Constitution gives all rights to the people except the ones that it has enumerated to belong to the government.

    18. Re:Good ... by Nemesisghost · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What I would like to see is a complete redefinition of what the government recognizes as a civil marriage, by removing the marriage part. Why can't I as a single guy, get the same advantages as a married couple with my roommates on our taxes & other social benefits? Or on the other end, what about those who are in a relationship with more than 1 person(ie polygamy)? Let me define my "family" as I see fit, and leave the government out of it entirely. Because as it stands, even after today, it's not fair.

    19. Re:Good ... by EuclideanSilence · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This must be one of the most misunderstood aspects of rights and the declaration of independence. The authors of the declaration of independence were not ambiguous about what they meant:
      "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

      1) There exist certain rights.
      2) Their existence is self evident. It is self evident that you are born alive, you are born with the ability to choose, and you are born with the ability to decide the purpose of your choices. The government may become destructive to the ends, but all humans have these "rights" by virtue of our existence. All of these capabilities apply to anyone who is alive and sentient unless they are being purposely interfered with, and they are not necessarily exhaustive.
      3) These rights are endows "by our creator". If you are not theist then they are endowed by virtue of your existence; if you were a protestant in 1776 then they were endowed by the grace of God.
      4) They are unalienable. Why would we go to war to fight to regain something that is unalienable? We didn't. We fought to obtain government rights for the purpose of stopping the government from interfering with these "self evident" rights.

      As others mention, life liberty and property were not rights believed granted by the government. However, other rights are secured in order to prevent the government from interfering with the self evident rights. Your freedom of speech, your right to bear arms, even the nature of the US Constitution as a whitelist of powers for the Federal Government as made explicit by the 9th amendment are not the unalienable "self evident" rights that the declaration was referring to. These are rights that were alienated, required a lot of debate in order to find evidence justifying their existence, and must be fought for to be retained.

    20. Re:Good ... by DJRumpy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A thousand times NO. The word "Marriage" is NOT owned by any religious group. It was first and foremost a civil term. It was incorporated into a religious ceremony until the 1500's in Christian circles. Marriage was known in the bible but largely considered a private matter that didn't involve the church. Why should a civil union surrender to the demands of a religion that is usurping the word Marriage?

    21. Re:Good ... by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    22. Re:Good ... by ganjadude · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    23. Re:Good ... by alfredo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      photosMy Photostream
    24. Re:Good ... by EuclideanSilence · · Score: 5, Informative

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

      That is correct, all powers not explicitly granted to the federal government are retained by the people. That results in an infinite number of rights. For example, you actually do have a federal "right to fly", "right to drive", "right to marry whoever you want" simply by the fact that the constitution does not grant these powers to the general government.

      The misunderstanding that the constitution would only grant a few finite rights was one of the strongest arguments against adopting the Bill of Rights.

        Wikipedia covers it pretty well:

      James Madison addressed what would become the Ninth Amendment as follows:
      It has been objected also against a Bill of Rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.

      The 9th (and somewhat 10th) amendment were drafted for the purpose of avoiding confusion about the enumeration of powers and rights, but it is somewhat depressing that the majority of people today believe that their only federal rights are those outlined by the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments.

    25. Re:Good ... by clarkkent09 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Scalia is in favor of originalist interpretation of the Constitution and he's been pretty consistent about that. It is absurd to say that the framers of the Constitution intended the equal protection clause to mean equal protection for every form of marriage, therefore the court should have no basis for overturning the people's representatives decision to pass this law. He is the one being consistent here, it is the proponents of 'living constitution' who are always unpredictable and inconsistent because they believe Justices should vote based on their personal feelings of right and wrong.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    26. Re:Good ... by alva_edison · · Score: 5, Informative

      ...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

      - Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution

      ...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws...

      - Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

      --
      He effected a bored affect.
    27. Re:Good ... by DJRumpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Interesting. So if congress passes the Patriot Act that makes the Executive's actions 'legal', you would still label the Executive as a Fuhrer for executing the laws that Congress passed?

      Of course, if he was a better 'Fuhrer, you'd be baking in an oven somewhere no doubt...

    28. Re:Good ... by Torodung · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wrong. They are inalienable. When the government takes them away, they are overstepping their bounds, and becoming authoritarian despots.

      That's how it works in Enlightenment philosophy (almost theology, really) at least, which is the basis of our country's law, and Nature's God.

      Read up, bro.

    29. Re:Good ... by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 4, Informative

      Those rights are provided by the government. The right of paying less tax than others was a right granted to a group of people, usually a group of no more or less than 2, that were bearing offspring. Marriage was the churches answer to make sure that a child had a father to maturing age.

      Holy fuck are you ignorant of the facts. Marriage originated as a means of property management, i.e. women as property. They were ordained by the churches originally because they were more often than not, the local magistrates. Also the churches, especially messianic types have a very vested interest in keeping the power in the hands of the patriarchy. Marriages of love, in a historical sense are pretty rare and are mostly a modern invention.

      The state now, has a vested interest in encouraging cohabitation because such couples tend to spend more money and participate in the economy more than single people. Kids in the mix are just a bonus. Parents spend more money regardless of the gender of the couple. To encourage unions like this, the state offers tax incentives, much like they offer farm subsidies for planting certain crops over others. The raising of children is really incidental to the institution of marriage. People living together over long periods of time and occasionally fucking will eventually produce children, which is important to the economy, but really has nothing to do with marriage other than one is more likely to cause the other.

      The rise of divorce rates is directly attributed to the empowerment of women in a through education and economics, it doesn't have shit to do with the church outside of women breaking the bounds of oppressive religion.

      The state now gives the churches a semblance of dominion over marriage, but make no mistake, it is now solely an institution of the state. Any minister of any church must be recognized by the state as having a legitimate claim to ordination before any action they take towards performing a marriage ceremony (which is all it is, a meaningless ceremony) and then signing the legal document (the actual thing that makes a marriage legal). Without that the marriage would be null and void. If the person is not recognized by The State as having been given the authority by the state to do sign the paper, it isn't legal regardless of the participants gender.

      --
      I got here through a series of tubes
    30. Re:Good ... by ganjadude · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    31. Re:Good ... by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are natural rights, and civil rights, and political rights and social rights. Some depend on the existence of a state, or on a particular social order.

      but, I suppose that you have a particular view of things that you would like to be part of the indoctrination known as "civics class."

    32. Re:Good ... by alva_edison · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, this would probably work because there are churches that are willing to marry same-sex couples. So they could be married, and have their civil union the same as different-sex couples.
          Due to the overwhelming number of statutes at all levels of government, it would require an amendment to the United States Constitution to catch all of the usages. One of the general rules of conservatism (in the United States) is a reluctance to pass constitutional amendments at that level. I don't see social progressives (again using United States standards for the words) willing to cede the word "marriage" to religious institutions. That means that while this is a potential solution, it has a low chance of implementation.
        The other argument being presented is that marriage shouldn't be religious at all, those trappings being added (according to others in this conversation) after Europeans started routinely coming to the Americas.

      --
      He effected a bored affect.
    33. Re:Good ... by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    34. Re:Good ... by Omestes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I hate the word "rights"...

      Where do they come from? They aren't natural, since in a wild state (no government, or enforcement of these rights) they wouldn't exist. Some of them didn't exist throughout much of human history, or only existed selectively to certain populations. I don't accept a concept of a creator, deist or otherwise, so they can't spring from that. Evolution and nature doesn't give a shit about us, or our rights, so it didn't come from there. This leaves one place where they could have come from; us.

      Rights are a social construct, they only exist because we believe in them, and take action to enforce them. Rights are very much magic. One could argue that our constitution created said rights via social construct. The act of saying "these are your rights" and people believing it, made them so. If we all decided marriage or access to healthcare was a right, it would be tomorrow. I we all decided that freedom of speech or religion wasn't a right, it wouldn't be.

      Also, if they are inalienable, and universal, then why do they only apply to American citizens, and only some sets of them, still, and only in circumstances not deemed special (terrorism)? Why shouldn't an illegal immigrant have the same rights as me, or a foreign national in another country when acted upon by US powers?

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    35. Re:Good ... by Quila · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    36. Re:Good ... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Constitution grants the government powers, not rights. Only people have rights. Governments are created by people who grant the government certain limited, well-defined powers over those rights, powers specifically listed, and no others.

      The battle over the Bill of Rights was between two factions, one of whom feared the very act of listing some would make future politicians claim those were the only rights. The other faction feared that without it, future politicians would claim those rights, so transparently obvious to the Founding Fathers, did not actually exist.

      Sadly, both factions were correct. Modern politicians on both sides claim the right exists if it supports their goals, and claim it doesn't if it gets in the way of their power grabs or pandering.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    37. Re:Good ... by Darinbob · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The constitution is old though. The concept of states being the same as independent nations that are just joined together into a loose federation is obsolete, and it started the process of becoming obsolete almost immediately. We've had a couple centuries and a major war that has changed it all, and now we have a strong central government. The states we have today are really not much more than administrative districts in many ways. And that is not necessarily a bad thing.

      For you programmers out there, the constitution is like a design document. That doesn't mean that the end product has to look exactly like what the design specified or that it is a moral failing if the end product has changed or that the design has changed. Even the "founding fathers" (a goofy term really) changed their minds, their idealistic views were adjusted once they were actually in power and figuring out how to govern pragmatically. The exact same people who wrote the constitution were also the ones who formed central banks. purchased the Louisiana territory, suspended liberties, and so forth. This is only a problem though if you assume that their original ideals were the only valid ones or that the constitution was divinely inspired or some other nonsense.

    38. Re:Good ... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    39. Re:Good ... by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    40. Re:Good ... by DrGamez · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    41. Re:Good ... by Magius_AR · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    42. Re:Good ... by danbert8 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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".

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    43. Re:Good ... by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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).

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    44. Re:Good ... by ubermiester · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    45. Re:Good ... by Sabriel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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).

    46. Re: Good ... by jxander · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Bingo

      An analogy I like to use is with our well known Miranda rights. Being told "you have the right to remain silent," isn't what grants me those rights. As a citizen of the US, I have those rights by default. A cop doesn't give those rights, he simply makes sure I know about them.

      Likewise, neither the Constitution, the Declaration of Independance, nor any other document GRANT the unalienable rights of all men. They simply let us know that as a living, breathing human being, these are the rights we have.

      --
      This signature is false.
    47. Re:Good ... by adamstew · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

  2. What now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:What now? by Jarmihi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      ~Jarmihi
    2. Re:What now? by operagost · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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).

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    3. Re:What now? by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

    4. Re:What now? by SJHillman · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

    5. Re:What now? by LocalH · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You know, "states' rights" doesn't equal "racism" no matter how hard you try. The Federal government should be ensuring that people's rights aren't violated, but there's plenty of room for states to have their own rights as per the Constitution, without cutting off our nose to spite our face. That's where DOMA came into play - it didn't seek to invalidate the rights of states to respect same-sex marriage, it sought to allow other states to invalidate those rights. This has been struck down, and it's a good thing. But, to change the subject, let's talk about cannabis legalization. Two states have outright legalized it even for recreational use, and those laws should be upheld as they infringe on nobody's rights. That's the type of thing that is actually within the purview of "states' rights" without being discriminatory or prejudicial.

      To some people, there are only two options they see - either the Federal government micro-manages the states, or the states have full autonomy regardless of who is being wronged. This speaks more to an inability of many people to see an issue in anything other than black and white, and in fact is the major reason that the US is so divided on social issues nowadays.

      --
      FC Closer
    6. Re:What now? by Antipater · · Score: 4, Informative

      No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

      That's Section 2 of DOMA, which was not ruled on. Only Section 3 of DOMA was ruled unconstitutional. The above section, which decrees that one state does not have to uphold a same-sex marriage conducted in another state, is still law.

      --
      Everything is better with chainsaws.
    7. Re:What now? by Antipater · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      Everything is better with chainsaws.
    8. Re:What now? by operagost · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  3. Funny results reporting by smooth+wombat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    1. Re:Funny results reporting by jaymz666 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      At this point, anyone who doubts that Fox News is putting extremely heavy spin and lies into their "news" is just not paying attention. It's an entertainment network, not a news network.

    2. Re:Funny results reporting by WilyCoder · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sure, if you find propaganda to be entertaining.

    3. Re:Funny results reporting by csumpi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Funny results reporting by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Funny

      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.

  4. So now that they can't use it as a weapon anymore by Qzukk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Will the republicans finally pull the jesus buttplug out of their ass and start being conservatives and start getting rid of all the inheritance bullshit they've built up over the years to protect their vision of what a family is supposed to be?

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  5. "Right" and "Left" change places yet again by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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!

    --
    "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    1. Re:"Right" and "Left" change places yet again by TheNastyInThePasty · · Score: 4, Informative

      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).

      --
      The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
  6. Good! The US should stay out of it. by jonnythan · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is great. The majority opinion repeatedly makes the point that DOMA stepped on states' toes specifically to HARM a certain group, instead of help it, and that was unconstitutional. The US shouldn't be in the business of denying rights to citizens that states want them to have.

    "DOMA’s avowed purpose and practical effect are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the states."

    "When the State used its historic and essential authority to define the marital relation in this way, its role and its power in making the decision enhanced the recognition, dignity, and protection of the class in their own community. DOMA, because of its reach and extent, departs from this history and tradition of reliance on state law to define marriage"

    "DOMA seeks to injure the very class New York seeks to protect. By doing so it violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government."

    Anyway, this is great. People think that preventing gay marriage is somehow taking a stand against homosexuality or something. News flash: gay couples live as married couples whether you like it or not. The only thing banning the marriage certificate does is punish them for being gay, which is ridiculous beyond belief.

  7. You're right by arcite · · Score: 4, Funny

    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!

  8. Re:Shocking, antidisestablishmentarianism . by jaymz666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

  9. Marriage is none of the government's business by schwit1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If 2 or 3 or 10 consenting adults wish to share their lives, so be it. Beyond the emotional component of marriage, which the government can add no value, the rest should fall under contract law.

  10. The Problem here is not marriage by josephtd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  11. Only section 3: Section 2 still stands. by luciano.moretti · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  12. Simple solution to this BS debate by moeinvt · · Score: 3

    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.

  13. Lawrence v. Texas by J'raxis · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Liberty in your lifetime
  14. "marriage" vs "civil union" by Chirs · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  15. Re:Distracts from unlimited surveillance by jbeaupre · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

    --
    The world is made by those who show up for the job.
  16. Re:Potayto/potatoh by Vaphell · · Score: 3

    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)?

  17. Re:From a citizen's standpoint by PraiseBob · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  18. An Immigrant's Perspective by TheSpoom · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As an immigrant who came to the US under a K-1 fiance visa, DOMA has always seemed to me to be one of the very worst pieces of active Federal legislation.

    Gay citizens have never been able to sponsor their partners for immigration as my now wife did for me. If she happened to be a guy, we would probably be in a different country right now, even though I came here so she could take her dream job. Make no mistake, DOMA was designed to keep gays out of the country. It should never have been made law, and it should have been repealed long ago. It will be a shameful part in the history of the United States.

    --
    It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
    - E. Debs
  19. Attorney General didn't appeal by Cutting_Crew · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  20. Marriage is not about religion by sjbe · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    I've wondered this for many years. No government at any level has any business creating financial incentives or any kind of restrictions on marriage at all. I see no reason why I should enjoy or be prohibited from any benefits (financial or otherwise) due to my marital status. If we want to say that marriage is a way to bundle certain estate benefits in order to save time then fine but marriage should not be required or incentivized for any of those very same benefits.

    Where I live it is impossible for a man to own a house in just his own name if he is married. However a woman can own a house in her own name if she is married. I'm astonished that discriminatory laws like that remain in effect.

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

    No it isn't about religion. I'm married but I'm definitely not religious nor was I married in, around or by a church. A marriage is a just a public acknowledgement of a private fact. I have someone in my life who I care very deeply about and so I made a public commitment to her. Has nothing to do with religion or children or financial benefits at all. You can get married and never involve a church at all. Power to conduct marriages is given by the state to individuals, kind of like being a notary. The fact that the individual so empowered happens to be a member of a church is incidental.

  21. Re:Potayto/potatoh by ganjadude · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  22. Re:California by frnic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The President has a sworn duty to defend the constitution. If the President believes a law in unconstitutional he is required to NOT defend it.

  23. Marriage is not a religious activity by sjbe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Marriage is a religious activity, therefore how can the state discriminate on its basis?

    Curious. I'm married and I've never been involved with any church in my entire life. Exactly how is it that I'm married if "marriage is a religious activity? Oh, that's right, churches have no legal power whatsoever aside from power delegated to individual members of the church by the state for that purpose.

    You can be married without ever involving a religious institution. Marriage has nothing to do with religion aside from the fact that many marriages are officiated by members of churches.

  24. Re:Potayto/potatoh by SoupGuru · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Bible says nothing of the sort. The Bible says your wife's servant should sire you an heir if your wife can't. If you wanted to defend a definition of marriage that says one man + one woman, the Bible is that last book I'd use.

    --
    What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
  25. Re:Potayto/potatoh by ganjadude · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  26. Re:Potayto/potatoh by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    I got here through a series of tubes
  27. Re:Potayto/potatoh by SomeKDEUser · · Score: 3, Informative

    That is an argument from ignorance: in the bible, marriage is between a man and a number of wives and concubines and slaves...

    In the West marriage comes from Roman and Greek institutions, altered by Germanic traditions, and a post hoc sanction by the church -- inheritor of the Roman tradition.

  28. Re:Potayto/potatoh by radio4fan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.