DOMA struck down

[kentonio]

Supreme Court DOMA Decision Rules Federal Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

WASHINGTON -- The Defense of Marriage Act, the law barring the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages legalized by the states, is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday by a 5-4 vote.

"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,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. “By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.”

Justice Kennedy delivered the court’s opinion, and was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito all filed dissenting opinions.

DOMA, signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996, prevents same-sex couples whose marriages are recognized by their home state from receiving the hundreds of benefits available to other married couples under federal law. During the Obama administration, the Justice Department initially defended DOMA in court despite the administration’s desire to repeal it. But the Justice Department changed course in early 2011, finding that the law was unconstitutional and declining to defend it any longer. House Republicans have since spent hundreds of thousands of dollars taking over that defense.

Plaintiff Edie Windsor, 84, sued the federal government after the Internal Revenue Service denied her refund request for the $363,000 in federal estate taxes she paid after her spouse, Thea Spyer, died in 2009.

During the March oral arguments in United States v. Windsor, a majority of the court seemed to express doubts about the constitutionality of DOMA. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that supporters of the law seemed to want "two types of marriage," likening same-sex unions to the "skim milk" version of marriage.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...tml?ref=topbar

Good work SCOTUS! Typical that yet again a major case is decided 5-4 though.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You would also think federalism inclined conservatives would approve as well - since it was the Federal Government indicating that it wouldn't accept a state's own determination of who can get married in that state.

[Lorizael]

Man, SCOTUS is on a roll.

[MRT144]

I blame that liberal justice rat John Roberts.

[PLATO]

A victory for State's Rights. Interesting that Roberts was in dissent...I can't wait to read his opinion.

[snoopy369]

You would also think federalism inclined conservatives would approve as well - since it was the Federal Government indicating that it wouldn't accept a state's own determination of who can get married in that state.

Indeed.

[MikeH]

Good work SCOTUS! Typical that yet again a major case is decided 5-4 though.

Isn't it the nature of cases that go before the Supreme Court that they tend not to be clear cut cases? so you'd expect that. (genuine question)

[snoopy369]

A victory for State's Rights. Interesting that Roberts was in dissent...I can't wait to read his opinion.

His opinion is short and largely meaningless. Scalia's is far more interesting. Roberts, as far as I can tell, just wanted to make really clear that this isn't intended to force states to allow same-sex marriage.

I have to say I'm very disappointed in the decision rendered by the majority. Not that I disagree with gay marriage - I agree wholeheartedly - but I'm far more persuaded by Scalia's opinion of the law than Kennedy's. Part of that may no doubt be that Kennedy is required to state the facts, while Scalia in writing a dissent is allowed to be much more directly confrontational and thus more persuasive (and, let's face it, for all of his questionable beliefs, Scalia is a highly persuasive writer).

I don't entirely buy, though, the argument that because the law was made to specifically target one group, it must fail. I certainly agree it was targeted, and malicious in a sense; but as pointed out, it is not permitted for the court to consider the moral intent of Congress, solely their constitutionality. The question should entirely be whether this is a due process violation or not, or a federalism violation or not. If they'd stuck with the latter, I'd likely have been entirely convinced; but straying into the intent of those writing the law seems wrong. It seems to me that the majority is voting on their opinion of the morality of the law, not on the actual judicial merits, and that disappoints me.

Perhaps a second reading of Kennedy's opinion will improve its tenor to me, but at first reading I rather wish they'd dismissed on standing.

[snoopy369]

Isn't it the nature of cases that go before the Supreme Court that they tend not to be clear cut cases? so you'd expect that. (genuine question)

Once upon a time, the court prided itself in unanimous or near-unanimous verdicts nearly all of the time, I think to avoid looking like it was a political body. That's clearly not the case anymore.

Some cases go to the Court because the Appellate court says they don't have the power to decide something novel; other cases might go because there is a precedent that may apply but is either contrary to the logical ruling (ie, asking the SCOTUS to overturn a prior ruling) or is from a different circuit and/or there are competing precedents in the circuits, and the SCOTUS is expected to adjudicate. Those often are more clear-cut in terms of the agreement of the justices. You also have cases like the third case decided today, which was a pretty clear case of "The law says X, but we'd think the fair reading is Y"; the SCOTUS nearly always rules X. (In that case, someone attempted to blackmail a counsel to New York's financial advisor or something like that to remove his recommendation to not do business with a particular fund; they prosecuted him on Extortion grounds, where the particular statute reads 'deprive... of property'. Given he was blackmailed/extorted/whatever to change his advice, it's pretty obvious that the law should not apply, as this was not a matter of property, but coercion of his actions, which was not a part of the statute for whatever reason. Predictably, the ruling was 8-1, with the decision largely saying "You guys are idiots for even thinking this was a good idea.")

[Asher]

Suck it, Ben.

The world is getting gayer. Embrace it.

[kentonio]

The day we discover he's actually spent the last decade hanging out in public men's bathrooms will be a strange mix of entertaining and utterly predictable.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't entirely buy, though, the argument that because the law was made to specifically target one group, it must fail. I certainly agree it was targeted, and malicious in a sense; but as pointed out, it is not permitted for the court to consider the moral intent of Congress, solely their constitutionality. The question should entirely be whether this is a due process violation or not, or a federalism violation or not. If they'd stuck with the latter, I'd likely have been entirely convinced; but straying into the intent of those writing the law seems wrong. It seems to me that the majority is voting on their opinion of the morality of the law, not on the actual judicial merits, and that disappoints me.

Intent does matter if you are advocating a heightened standard based on the class of sexual orientation. For example, with race, you have strict scrutiny, meaning the law must have a compelling governmental interest and be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. The motives of the legislature are frequently looked at to determine if there was a compelling governmental interest or not.

So looking at motives under a heightened scrutiny for sexual orientation is totally within bounds. In addition, Equal Protection was the main jist of Kennedy's argument, IIRC.

[MrFun]

Neal and I are very happy with this news.

[Sava]

a defeat for bigotry

[Docfeelgood]

As I understand each state can decide if they want same sex marriage but the Fed has to acknowledge either stance the state has?