Printer-friendly version
Author:
Taxonomy upgrade extras:
The Supreme Court of the United States has struck down the Federal "Defense of Marriage Act" as unconstitutional.
The immediate effect of this is to require the Federal government to recognize all legal marriages, including same-sex marriages conducted in those states that permit it, and to treat all married couples equally.
I forgot the quote that goes something like "The arc of..." something or other "...is long, but it bends towards justice."
This is that.
The nerds among us (including me!) will probably enjoy reading this: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdf
Comments
Thanks to Pippa and the Supremes
This is GREAT! Wonderful, and about time. This and the prop 8 decision are the best case anyone writing about SSM thought would happen.
I don't know if Kim's and my marriage (technically het) needed this ruling to protect all our marriage rights or not, but it certainly doesn't hurt. IRS or other fed workers should be less likely to think anything is wrong when dealing with any marriage benefit that we might need.
Hugs and Bright Blessings,
Renee
DOMA
I think it is only section three that has been ruled against. Does this mean that the other sections still stand? (the ones covering other states not having to recognise the marriages)
For Now
Those other sections weren't part of the lawsuit, so the Supreme Court didn't address them. At the same time, though, they didn't confirm them, either. They confined their ruling strictly to the case at hand.
The plaintiff in this case lived in New York, where those other sections didn't affect her. Her lawsuit was against the provisions that affected how the federal government treated same-sex couples who were legally married. As that section was clearly unconstitutional, the Court struck it down.
Their decision seems to be very deferential to state's rights to define marriage, so we'll have to wait and see whether a case can challenge the other provisions*. But, for now, there are 13 states and the District of Columbia where a same-sex couple can live with the full recognition and benefits of marriage on a state and federal level.
_______
*- It's inevitable that something will come up. There are federal military bases in every state, and a same-sex married couple who transfers to a state with laws against marriage recognition, but who can enjoy the benefits of marriage on base, may very well encounter some cause of action to sue that state, perhaps something involving a housing, hospitalization or probate matter. A ruling in that case could shoot down the rest of DOMA.
To put it into a historical
To put it into a historical perspective, the ruling striking down DOMA was very much like the Emancipation Proclamation in how it affects people. What I mean by that is that it isn't as sweeping as a constitutional amendment supporting same-sex marriage, but it does mandate the Federal government recognize all same-sex marriages in states that allow them without being able to deny that. However, it doesn't provide the legal right to have a same-sex marriage in states that forbid such. Which as you point out is likely to be the case soon.
Samirah M. Johnstone
DOMA and the Mormons
There is much wringing of hands today in Salt Lake City, and I think a lot of the ruction is about either paranoia or just plain lies. The argument of the church is that they do not want to be forced to do gay marriages in their Temples. According to my interpretation, the Bill of rights says that:
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another ... in the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State' ... That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."[10]
So, personally I think that churches right to marry or not marry is constitutionally guaranteed. There are lots of churches around that do gay marriage, so why would the Mormons be afraid about being forced? I think a lot of untruth is being told on both sides.
BZZZT!
So the Mormons are telling each other that the Feds are getting ready to force them to do gay marriages? How does this equate to untruth on both sides? Seriously, if one side is lying about the issues, fairness does NOT mean that you must say that the other side must be lying too.
Hugs,
Erin
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
I Agree With Erin
I'd be curious, Gwen, as to what you see as being untruths being told on the fairness-for-lgbt-folk side. As far as I can tell, all they've ever said is, "We want the same rights as everyone else." It's the "anti" side which has told every lie in the book, comparing gays to dog-f***ers and child molesters, claiming their children are neglected, making wild claims about "recruitment," and every other form of character assassination in the book. And, not to make too fine a point of it, calling all of us non-vanilla types "abominations."
At the most, lgbt supporters have simply pointed out the corrosive tactics and low moral character of the libelous "anti" side. Tell us where the untruth has been in that.