BREAKING: Supreme Court Says DOMA Is Unconstitutional

[Hissyspit]

Last edited Wed Jun 26, 2013, 11:31 AM - Edit history (9)

Source: Huffington Post / SCOTUS Blog

10:17
Amy Howe: To reiterate again, in case my first post didn't go through a minute or so ago, DOMA has been struck down. Opinion is by Justice Kennedy, joined by the four liberal Justices -- Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.

Amy Howe: "DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty."

SCOTUSblog @SCOTUSblog 1m
Looks like the Court is preparing to not decide Prop 8. So the trial judge's ruling invalidating Prop 8 stands. No national ruling.

COURT STRIKES DOWN KEY PROVISION OF DOMA

Supreme Court Defense Of Marriage Act Decision: Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of DOMA

The Supreme Court has struck down a key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act forbidding federal recognition of gay marriages for couples residing in states that recognize their union.

The court's decision came by a ruling of 5-4.

The ruling is one of two major gay marriage rulings being considered by the High Court. The court is also ruling on Proposition 8, California's anti-gay marriage law.

DOMA defines marriage as between "one man and one woman as husband and wife" for purposes of federal law. It was challenged by Edith "Edie" Windsor, 83, when the Internal Revenue Service stuck her with $363,000 of estate taxes after her late wife died.

FROM SCOTUSBLOG:

10:55
Tejinder: In response to some questions about Windsor: Only Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act -- which defines the words "marriage" and "spouse," for federal purposes, as referring only to marriages between opposite-sex couples -- has been struck down. Consequently, any federal statute that refers to a "marriage" or a "spouse" should be interpreted as applying with equal force to same-sex married couples.

10:55
Amy Howe: Here's a Plain English take on United States v. Windsor, the DOMA case: The federal Defense of Marriage Act defines "marriage," for purposes of over a thousand federal laws and programs, as a union between a man and a woman only. Today the Court ruled, by a vote of five to four, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy, that the law is unconstitutional. The Court explained that the states have long had the responsibility of regulating and defining marriage, and some states have opted to allow same-sex couples to marry to give them the protection and dignity associated with marriage. By denying recognition to same-sex couples who are legally married, federal law discriminates against them to express disapproval of state-sanctioned same-sex marriage. This decision means that same-sex couples who are legally married must now be treated the same under federal law as married opposite-sex couples.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/supreme-court-defense-of-marriage-act-decision_n_3454834.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003

---

George Takei ?@GeorgeTakei 29s
DOMA has been held unconstitutional, 5-4 decision authored by Justice Kennedy. Oh happy day!

Barack Obama ?@BarackObama 5m
Today's DOMA ruling is a historic step forward for #MarriageEquality. #LoveIsLove

MoveOn.org ?@MoveOn 58s
#DOMA is #unconstitutional!! #SCOTUS #MarriageEquality pic.twitter.com/lTnCxfLT8C

AmnestyInternational ?@amnesty 5m
Amnesty applauds #Supreme Court decision striking down #DOMA protecting #human rights for married same-sex couples

Greg Stohr ?@GregStohr 6m
DOMA tells same-sex couples "their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others,” Kennedy wrote for the court. #scotus
Retweeted by Bloomberg News

Glenn Greenwald ?@ggreenwald 3m
Edith Windsor joins the pantheon of great Supreme Court litigants who secured rights for everyone.

Slate ?@Slate 1m
Walking down steps of #SCOTUS w/hands raised victoriously were couples that brought #Prop8 challenge. They were serenaded by national anthem

Michael Moore ?@MMFlint 51s
Scalia now reading his angry dissent, using words like "diseased root." #dinosaur

Michael Moore ?@MMFlint 1m
Supreme Court lets appeals court ruling that overturned California anti-gay marriage law (Prop 8) stand. Same sex marriage now legal in CA.

Cyndi Lauper ?@cyndilauper 1m
DOMA unconstitutional!

10:21
Amy Howe: What this means, in plain terms, is that same-sex couples who are legally married will be entitled to equal treatment under federal law-- with regard to, for example, income taxes and Social Security benefits.

Comment From Mary
So does this mean that I'll be able to file joint taxes with my wife? From Amy: Yes. Perhaps for the first time ever, many people will be eager to file their taxes next April 15.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/06/edith-windsor-doma-struck-down.html

JUNE 26, 2013
HOW EDITH WINDSOR LEARNED SHE WON
POSTED BY ARIEL LEVY



Photographs, of Edith Windsor and Roberta Kaplan, by Ariel Levy.

Everyone at the apartment of Roberta Kaplan, the lawyer who argued Edith Windsor’s successful challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act, exploded in screams and sobs when the ruling came down. Kaplan called her mother and said, “Total victory, Mom: it couldn’t be better.” Windsor said, “I wanna go to Stonewall right now!” Then she called a friend and said, “Please get married right away!”

MORE

"Give to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself that is my doctrine." ~ Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man, Part 2, 1792, written in defense of the French Revolution.

"no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." - Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, U.S. Constitution

Thank you, DU, for letting me break this news to you.

[Hayabusa]

1. Yes!

[steve2470]

2. YAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY !

Happy day for all of us !

[BumRushDaShow]

3. K&R

Congratulations!!!

[darkangel218]

4. Awesome!!!

X

[JTFrog]

5. Huge K&R!

[nolabear]

6. Lord, did I need some good news today. Hooray!

[grantcart]

7. Great News - Republican heads exploding all over the US

[darkangel218]

13. Bwahahahahahahaha!!!!!

[4lbs]

8. Good job!

Now, to overturn Prop 8....

[Nanjing to Seoul]

10. Now overturn that fucking Voting Rights Act destruction from earlier today.

[Nativechef]

61. It was!!!

With the SCOTUS decision today they dismissed the Prop 8 case. The decision as to gay marriage legaity is now left to the states to decide. So in a nutshell.... gays can now legally marry in California as the Ca. State Supreme court struck down Prop 8 as unconstitutional.

[dsc]

86. that is inaccurate

the California Supreme Court upheld prop 8 it was a federal district court which struck it down, that is the decision which is now controlling.

[Quantess]

9. Finally some good news!

I am (pleasantly) shocked to hear it, actually.

[ChazII]

41. Pleasantly shocked is right. n/t

[Iwillnevergiveup]

11. It feels good

to WIN!

K&R

[geckosfeet]

12. batting .500 for the last two days...

[Nye Bevan]

14. Bill Clinton's biggest shame. Excellent. (nt)

[KamaAina]

87. Followed closely by NAFTA and welfare deform.

Monica doesn't even make the podium.

[Coyotl]

15. What a great day in political history!

Last edited Wed Jun 26, 2013, 10:45 AM - Edit history (1)

[closeupready]

16. Excellent ruling.

[Jefferson23]

17. GREAT NEWS! n/t

[darkangel218]

18. Cheers everyone, this calls for a beer!!

[Jackpine Radical]

19. The corporations don't give a shit about DOMA.

Therefore the SC was free to do what they wanted in order to preserve soma facade of even-handedness.

Nevertheless, I'm duly grateful for the decision.

[onehandle]

31. Exactly right. Negligible effect on the bank accounts of the 1%.

In fact they probably will profit off of it.

So this RW court shrugged.

[rhett o rick]

90. Yes but they loved that it was a distraction. nm

[Jackpine Radical]

104. Oh, hell yes.

Voting rights are gone, people can't sue the corporations who injure them, but by God gays can marry. Again I don't mean to diminish the importance of striking down DOMA, but the grip tightens with all the rest of what they did.

[scarletwoman]

109. I had the same thought. I'm very glad for this ruling, and at the same time

I have to recognize that it's not something that would cause any particular trouble for the Overclass anyway.

Still, my sincere congratulations and good wishes to all who will benefit. It IS a wonderful turning point in their struggle for equal rights!

[Le Taz Hot]

20. OMG!!!!!

We need to celebrate BIG today. Tomorrow we need to get to work restoring the VRA. The fight is never over.

[OKNancy]

21. idiot Scalia:

Justice Scalia is reading from his dissent right now. The Court's opinion both in explaining its jurisdiction and its decision "both spring from the same diseased root: an exalted notion of the role of this court in American democratic society."

Why did he rule the way he did on the voting rights act then. He should have stayed out of it

[JCMach1]

22. Correct me if I am wrong, but now all states would have to recognize those marriages

...this is a huge deal

[csziggy]

35. Aouldn't it also mean that benefits for spouses would apply?

On federal and state levels?

[cate94]

50. Not the way I understood it.

This only applies to couples married in states that it is legal. If you are in a civil union state or a state where same sex marriage is not allowed, nothing will change- at least not immediately.

[missingthebigdog]

71. That is my reading of this as well.

The federal government now has to recognize those marriages which have occurred in states that have legalized gay marriage. Other states do not yet have to do so.

[former9thward]

85. No this is a states rights decision.

States are free to do want they want.

[Blasphemer]

23. Fantastic!! I'm in tears!... nt

[cal04]

24. Ruling given by Justice Anthony Kennedy

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2013/06/26/court_strikes_down_defense_of_marriage_act.html



The U.S. Supreme Court said in a broad ruling that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional. The vote was 5 to 4 with Justice Anthony Kennedy reading the majority opinion.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdf

Washington Post: "The court said it violated equal protection to provide benefits to heterosexual couples while denying them to gay couples in the 12 states plus the District of Columbia where same-sex couples may marry. The law passed by bipartisan majorities in Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton recognized marriage as only between one man and one woman."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court/2013/06/26/f0039814-d9ab-11e2-a016-92547bf094cc_story.html

Wonk Wire has a round up of analysis and opinion.
http://wonkwire.rollcall.com/2013/06/26/same-sex-marriage-roundup/

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdf

[premium]

25. Excellent ruling,

long overdue, should never have become law in the first place.
Now, on to the rest of the holdout states to get gay rights passed and signed into law.

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

26. Yes!

Thanks justice Kennedy!

I'm not LGBTQI but being straight does not mean being narrow.

A great step forward for equality.

[AngryAmish]

27. I wonder why this wasn't challenged before

[malthaussen]

28. The right hand giveth, and the left hand taketh away

DOMA down, Voting Rights Act down. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: there is a curious irony about our "giving" rights to persecuted groups, just when we are reducing the significance of those rights to nothing.

-- Mal

[hack89]

29. Great!!! nt

[angrychair]

30. Congrats!

Today is better than yesterday. Hoping for a better tomorrow.

[Smarmie Doofus]

32. So... marriage is officially....errrhh...*undefended*?

Pack up the moon and dismantle the sun.

[csziggy]

33. WHOOOO HOOOOO! YAY!

[libodem]

34. Woo Hoo

This is sofa king good..best news evah... woo hoo WOO HOO!

[Tikki]

36. Oh, Congratulations to ALL who have love and commitment in their hearts.

Step right up and get married.


The Tikkis

[vdogg]

37. Yay!

It's nice to be able to get off this Snowden BS and have something that we can all cheer.

[LonePirate]

38. Was all of DOMA overturned or just Section 3?

[ieoeja]

100. Just Section 3. States still do not have to recognize *those* marriages by other states.

So section 3 gets overturned based on "equal treatment" of the States. While the federal law exempting States having to grant Full-Faith and Credit stands. But that exemption applies only to marriage where both partners are the same gender. Which means that law violates "equal treatment" of the People.

But then, this Supreme Court only recognizes non-human people such as States and Corporations. Human people do not have rights.

I'm sure if asked they will simply say that section of the law was not being challenged in this particular case. Which is true. It gives them a Constitutional excuse to allow an unconstitutional law to remain on the books. But they could have ruled anyway.


Heck, "equal treatment" of the States is a real stretch in this case. The Feds not giving Full-Faith and Credit to state's marriages was applied equally to the different states: same gender marriage by every state was not recognized. States were treated the same in this regard. Kennedy just needed some Rightist bullshit upon which to hang his ruling.

[Botany]

39. Much love to my gay and lesbian DU friends

The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment is pretty clear.

[bigbrother05]

40. This will clear the way for DoD to recognize gay marriage rights on post

After DADT was dropped, DOMA was the barrier to providing full spousal rights to same sex couple for military benefits. This is a similar path followed with interracial marriage in the 50s/60s. The military was ahead of many states for spousal benefits.

Housing, shopping, and medical benefits can make or break many young couples.

[gademocrat7]

42. K&R

[yellowcanine]

43. Scalia is now AGAINST "legislating from the bench"

The Voting Rights act had far more support than DOMA in Congress, so how does he work this out in his fevered little brain?


Moshe Marvit @MosheMarvit

Yesterday Scalia was ok overturning the VRA; today he calls judicial supremacy over Congress & President "jaw-dropping"
10:16 AM - 26 Jun 2013
46 RETWEETS 7 FAVORITES

[happyslug]

81. Two comments

I read Scalia's dissent in this case, I am afraid he is right, the court had no jurisdiction over this case ONCE the Federal Government decided the lower court ruling against the Government was correct. This case involved a Tax Refund, once the Government agreed to the Tax Refund, there was no long a dispute as to law among the litigates and thus the court no longer had standing to hear the case.

The US Supreme Court can only decide cases where a dispute exists, NOT WHERE BOTH SIDES AGREE. In this case, while many people had issues as to DOMA, the actual case involved a Tax Refund and once the Government agreed to the Tax Refund, they was no longer a dispute BETWEEN THE LITIGATES. No Disputes between the litigates no jurisdiction for the court to hear the case. The US Constitution requires all cases involve parties in disputes who have a stake in the outcome of the case, no advisory opinion, no decision when both sides agree as to the law etc. This case should have been dismissed based on Standing given the Federal Government advocated upholding the lower court ruling against the Government.

Second Comment: The Voting Rights act has always been suspect, it was only upheld by previous courts as a method to correct for past discrimination, it was NEVER INTENDED TO BE PERMANENT. Sooner or late either Congress was going to leave it lapse, or the Court was going to strike it down on the grounds the harm it was designed to end, had ended and thus the law is no longer needed. Everyone knew that, for the court had been making that ruling since the Voting Rights Act was first ruled on by the court in the 1960s. The issue has been when is the harm the Act was designed to end, ended and the law eliminated, either by Congress or the Courts.

Remember the act only applies to the former 13 Confederate States (and some other areas listed in the Act). As such it was NOT A UNIFORM FEDERAL LAW and that by itself would make it unconstitutional. Congress passed it, knowing its questionable constitutionality to correct well know wrongs being done in the areas covered by the act. The Court ruled it meet constitutional muster for it was limited as to area where clear harm had occurred and to time (The Act always had an end date, he various renewals were extensions of those end dates).

The problem has been, when will the Act no longer be "needed"? The Court have upheld it in the past deferring to Congress to set that end date. Since it was passed that end date has been pushed back and back and each time the Court had question the need for more time.

I hate to say it, sooner or later the Act would have to be ruled no longer constitutional. The dispute is have we finally reached the time period when the harms done prior to 1965 have been undone? You may disagree with Scalia, but this is a judgement call for each of the Justices on the Courts. We may disagree with his decision, but it is a decision that can be defended on the concept that if this Act is good enough for 13 of the 50 states, why not all 50? The Court can NOT expand the Act to all 50 (Congress can, but has not) but the court can rule Congress can do one of two things, expand it to all 50 states or abolish it. In a nutshell that is Scalia's decision. Congress can over rule him by expanding that law to all 50 states, but if Congress decides not to do that, who is to blame? Scalia or Congress?

[The CCC]

88. 81. Two comments

Those states and counties have always had the option of opting out by showing the DOJ they no longer discriminate. Several counties have successfully done this. The states of Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama have within hours of the SCOTUS decision said that they will keep on discriminating.

[yellowcanine]

118. The executive branch did not defend DOMA but Congress did.

So that makes it not as clear cut as Scalia would like to think as to litigants. If Boehner had backed off (which would have been the politically smart thing to do), Scalia's view would likely have carried the day.

On the Voting Rights Act - the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments clearly give Congress the right to make legislation regarding rights of former slaves and their descendants - meaning that the former Confederate states could be singled out for increased scrutiny. The decision as to when this special scrutiny is no longer needed is not in the hands of the SCOTUS - it is in the hands of Congress. Congress overwhelmingly reaffirmed the 1965 law as written in 2006. Thus their judgment prevails, not the SCOTUS - particularly not in a 5-4 decision. Voting rights are not just about the right to register or how many minority office holders there are. It is also about the ability to actually cast a vote and have it counted. There is plenty of reason to be suspicious about the voter ID laws, long lines at the polls, etc. that should give anyone pause before proclaiming that the harms done prior to 1965 have been undone. In the judgement of Congress in 2006 the answer was no. Yes, it would make sense to expand it to all 50 states - but in the judgment of Congress in 2006, the need was still greater for this kind of oversight in the former Confederate States. And indeed, within hours of the decision, Texas announced they would be implementing their voter ID law. It would be interesting to do an analysis of all of the voter ID laws, caging episodes, registration list purges, voter hour restrictions, polling place lines, etc in former Confederate vs other states and see whether or not the premise that this provision of the Voting Rights Act is no longer needed. I am betting that a fair analysis would say that it is as it is still mostly Southern Republican legislatures who are pushing this. And Southern Republicans are the legacy of the Dixiecrats, as much as they would like to obfuscate the fact.

[happyslug]

121. The 14th is NATIONAL in Scope not regional

AMENDMENT XIV

SECTION 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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.

SECTION 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

SECTION 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

SECTION 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

SECTION 5.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

AS to DOMA being defended by Congress, Scalia points that out and also pointed out it is the DUTY of the Executive to defend such actions NOT Congress. The Court has long rejected Congressional attempts to restrict the executives and Kennedy went on and on how the Court was NOT affecting those decisions.

[yellowcanine]

123. Of course it is. The whole Constitution is.

But the fact is, some states did violate the 14th Amendment by making Jim Crow laws and failing to enforce other laws equally as well as actively using the law to deny people the right to vote. The 1965 Voting Rights Act addressed those areas of the country where this occurred and instituted special procedures accordingly, which Section 5 of the 14th Amendment gives them the power to do. Roberts in his opinion substituted his own judgment for that of Congress in 2006 as to whether the special requirements for the South were still necessary. He had the power to do that, the question is, did he have the right to do it? I don't think so. The question which should be asked is, "Are there certain states where a minority is more likely to be disenfranchised by one means or another? If the answer is "yes", which I believe it is, then I don't see how one can say these special provisions are no longer needed. Note, it is not only whether or not a person can register which counts (that was the pre-1965 method of disenfranchisement), it is whether or not a person can VOTE and have their vote counted which matters. Can you say that a minority voter is just as likely to be able to vote and have their vote counted in the South as in the other states?

[Mr. David]

44. Scalia can go bite me.

And he needs to load himself with more pork fat and exit stage left.

[JudyM]

113. Ha! That was one of the first things I thought after hearing the news: bite this, scalia.

I still shudder inside when I think of his opinion in Bowers v Hardwick where he's all about denying basic rights because the Bible says this and that, just pure hatred and ugliness. I'm so happy thinking about him stewing over this now. That's right you power-monger, this time it was out of your hands.

[Aristus]

45. And straight allies of LGBT REJOICE!

[Ash_F]

46. Kennedy must feel pretty smug right now...wielding all that power.

Still, this is a good day.

[lunatica]

47. Finally! This is great, great news!

[RKP5637]

48. Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ReRe]

49. Hallelujah! Finally some common sense on this dissgusting winger dominated Court!

K&R

Scalia. HE is the "diseased root." They need to put a mirror in front of him. Disgusting human being.

[mountain grammy]

51. Indeed!

[mountain grammy]

52. Breaking news: The supreme court upholds the Constitution!

this time!

good news for a change!

[darkangel218]

60. +100000

About time they did the right thing!!

[BrotherIvan]

53. Time to celebrate!

I'm going to go taunt some bigots!

[The CCC]

54. BREAKING: Supreme Court Says DOMA Is Unconstitutional (Strikes Down Key Provision)

Yes the State must permit you to marry, and can't permit you to vote.

[Fire Walk With Me]

55. K&R! Thank you Hisspsit!

[Delphinus]

56. Tears pf joy!

I am so happy for all my LGBTQ friends! Wondrous news!!!

[Rob H.]

57. How does this affect individual states?

Here in Tennessee, same-sex marriage was already illegal when the state constitution was amended in 2006 after a referendum was added to the ballot for the gubernatorial election. Does DOMA being found to be unconstitutional open the door for overturning this amendment?

The really depressing thing about the "Tennessee Marriage Protection Amendment" is that 81% of registered voters voted for it, which means that in this deeply red state a lot of Democrats appeared to have jumped on the bigotry bandwagon, too.

[Hissyspit]

63. I think...

You will have to sue individually in the state. Those laws stand, but the precedent set here is that on a FEDERAL level, it's unconstitutional treatment, so it will be harder for states to defend unequal treatment - Equal Protection Clause of 14th Amendment.

That's my reading.

[ieoeja]

107. The remaining section of DOMA should be challenged on that same basis.

While the US Congress has the power to regulate Full-Faith and Credit between the States, the Equal Protection Clause says they can not do so discriminately. It is within the Federal government's power to exempt States from recognizing Full-Faith and Credit on all marriages by other states. By limiting that exemption to same-gender marriages only, DOMA still violates the Equal Protection accorded to People in those marriages.

Supremes could have made that ruling today. But since it was not part of this specific case, they chose to ignore it and let the remainder of DOMA stand despite the fact that it is blatantly unconstitutional.

[jeff47]

106. It doesn't.....yet.

Federal recognition is a very important step.

But moving on from here, I expect the next lawsuit to be from a same-sex couple married in a state like MA that then move to a state like TN. Suddenly becoming 'not married' when one crosses a state line doesn't make much sense.

That should result in states like TN being forced to acknoledge same-sex marriages from other states. From there, it becomes really dumb for legislators to insist their state won't allow marriage, when the neighboring states will. That will reverse a lot of those 1996-2006 laws and amendments.

Leaving a small minority of hold-outs, probably states like South Carolina. Which will result in another federal case, resulting in nation-wide same-sex marriage.

The really depressing thing about the "Tennessee Marriage Protection Amendment" is that 81% of registered voters voted for it, which means that in this deeply red state a lot of Democrats appeared to have jumped on the bigotry bandwagon, too

Well, just think about how fast times have changed - anti-same-sex marriage laws were used to rally the conservative base in 2004 and 2006 to great effect. Today? It doesn't work.

[darkangel218]

58. Tonite me and my friends are going to parttyyyy!!

This means a lot for all of us, but especially for them. I'm getting teary, because marriage is something as a straight person took for granted. Not so for my dear friends. Now its freaking OFFICIAL, take that Rw fundies!!!!!!!!

[libodem]

59. Here to WOO HOO in this thread TOO

WOO HOO, BABY! WOO HOO!!!

[Vinnie From Indy]

62. Finally something to celebrate from the SC

Cheers to America today!

[MotherPetrie]

64. Great big ol' K&R

[Solly Mack]

65. K&R

[Arkana]

66. Holy shit.

ONE MORE STEP TOWARDS THE GAYIFICATION OF AMERICA! SOON ALL OF US WILL BE FABULOUS!!!!!!!!!111one

[obama2terms]

67. Wahooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

They killed it! Yayyyy!

[RainDog]

68. k&r n/t

[NealK]

69. Yes!

[ismnotwasm]

70. K&R

[Liberalynn]

72. First of all let me start out by wishing Congratulations to DU's LGBT Community!

I am so happy for all of you. I know you still have battles left to fight but this is one more hurdle you have overcome!

Human rights should never be subject to a vote, and straight or gay we need to stand up together against those who will keep trying to change that basic principle of a truly free society. As I have always believed if all peoples
basic human rights aren't protected then nobody's basic human rights are protected.

Still I did not expect this pathetic excuse for a SC to rule this way. Especially after their disgusting and indefensible rulings on the VRA and Citizens United, not to mention that some of the members were around for the travesty of Bush V Gore. IMHO this is by far one of the worst courts ever.

Guess, however, they have to keep up some vague pretense of being a court actually concerned about upholding the constitution. That's some comfort that they actually still feel the need for that pretense. Its when they give even that up that our goose is totally cooked. JMHO. Still fear we are getting closer to that point.

Ending on a positive though, once again Congratulations to the LGBT Community on this victory!

[Hissyspit]

73. President Barack Obama issued a statement Wednesday applauding the Supreme Court's striking down

President Barack Obama issued a statement Wednesday applauding the Supreme Court's striking down of the Defense of Marriage Act, which he called "discrimination enshrined in law."

"It treated loving, committed gay and lesbian couples as a separate and lesser class of people. The Supreme Court has righted that wrong, and our country is better off for it," Obama said, criticizing the 1996 law that blocked federal recognition of same sex-marriage. "We are a people who declared that we are all created equal - and the love we commit to one another must be equal as well."

Obama said he has directed his administration to "review all relevant federal statutes to ensure this decision, including its implications for federal benefits and obligations, is implemented swiftly and smoothly."

"The laws of our land are catching up to the fundamental truth that millions of Americans hold in our hearts: when all Americans are treated as equal, no matter who they are or whom they love, we are all more free. "

(from Politico)

[happyslug]

74. Here is the actual opinion

tp://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdf

After going on and on about standing and how the parties had standing and did a great job presenting their sides, the court then ruled:

In order to assess the validity of that intervention it is necessary to discuss the extent of the state power and authority over marriage as a matter of history and tradition. State laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); but, subject to those guarantees, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393,404 (1975).

The recognition of civil marriages is central to state domestic relations law applicable to its residents and
citizens. See Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U. S. 287, 298 (1942) (“Each state as a sovereign has a rightful and legitimate concern in the marital status of persons domiciled within its borders”). The definition of marriage is the foundation of the State’s broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations with respect to the “protection of offspring, property interests, and the enforcement of marital responsibilities.” Ibid. “he states,at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, possessed
full power over the subject of marriage and divorce . . . the Constitution delegated no authority to the
Government of the United States on the subject of marriage and divorce.” Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U. S. 562, 575 (1906); see also In re Burrus, 136 U. S. 586, 593–594 (1890) (“The whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States”)

In simple terms it is a matter of STATE LAW as who can marry.

Now Scalia's dissent goes into the problem of Standing. In this case the LOSING side in the court below (the Federal Government) stated it wanted that decision upheld. Scalia commented that is the first time in the history of the Court that a LOSING SIDE BELOW wanted to upheld the decision against it. Scalia then states in his opinion that means the Court had no Jurisdiction for the parties in question had no real dispute and without a real dispute the Court has no standing to even hear the case.

On this point Scalia has a point, the issue was an income tax refund. The only defendant in that case was the Federal Government. Once the Federal Government conceded it no longer wanted to reverse the lower court decision, the court SHOULD HAVE DISMISSED THE CASE FOR NO ONE ELSE IN THE CASE HAD STANDING TO DEFEND THE CASE. In simple terms, if the Court ruled for the Federal Government, the Federal Government would have kept the money it collected on taxes. No one else would have benefited Directly from this case.

Please note "Advisory opinions" of the Court are NOT permitted under the US Constitution, you MUST have two people opposed to each other for the court to hear any case. In simple terms Scalia appears to be correct as to standing, but the Majority, Thomas and Alito also wanted to make a decision on the merits. Robert agreed with Scalia as to standing, but did NOT join Scalia's dissent on the issue of the merits. In many ways standing has always been a problem with the courts, with many decisions the court wanted to make waiting years before you had people with standing on the issue (It appears that the US Supreme Court would love to Rule California Proposition 13 unconstitutional since it was passed in the 1970s, but every time a case reaches the court, one side or the other drops out and thus no standing to hear the case).

It will be interesting how Scalia and the rest of the court handles the Case out of California. The State, in that case, did not want to file the appeal, but the people who pushed through the proposition did. On top of that it is a FEDERAL ISSUE, for the State Supreme Court had ruled that proposition meets the requirements of California Constitution and thus the only way to attack it was that it violated the Federal Constitution (which is what the Federal District Court ruled, and the State refused to appeal from, it was the people who wanted to proposition on the ballot that filed the appeal).

Now Scalia does go on about why he would uphold DOMA, but on the narrow grounds that all DOMA affected was federal benefits and Congress has the right to put whatever restrictions it wants on Federal Benefits. You may reject that position, but it is a viable position.

On the other hand Scalia's attack on Standing in this Case is very strong and why the court went on and on about why the sides had standing.

[rivegauche]

75. I've been waiting for this day since Clinton signed

that evil piece of shit. I can't believe how FANTASTIC, AMAZING AND WONDERFUL this is.

And you know what -- I still don't forgive Clinton for it, and I never will. He was a scumbag traitor for signing DOMA and I have despised him every moment since then.

[DURHAM D]

117. This is silly.

It isn't like we were able to get married BEFORE congress passed DOMA with large margins and Clinton signed it.

And after today we still can't get married nor do we have federal benefits in 36 states.

[tavalon]

76. Lets put this on the top!!!!!

[arely staircase]

77. diseased root

[Doctor_J]

78. One upside to Karl Rove running the entire country

Since he decided a few months ago that gay marriage is OK, Hate Radio is on board, Fox "News" is on board, and the SCOTUS does what he says too. Congrats. Your marriage has been blessed by Turd Blossom

[DCBob]

79. Thank goodness someone appointed a couple of Supremes to outvote the RWingers.

Cheers!

[calimary]

122. Something to think about, folks. Something IMPORTANT to think about.

Just seems to me to underscore the CRITICAL importance of keeping a Democrat in the White House. Failure to do so leaves us hamstrung and hobbled, with the damn scalias and alitos and thomases. It wasn't a republi-CON who brought you clear-headed thinking like Ruth Bader Ginsburg's or Sonia Sotomayor's (or Elena Kagan, I suppose, although I haven't exactly been in love with her since she, as Solicitor General, failed to win us the Citizens United case - President Obama said she was a great consensus-builder. I beg your pardon??????? She sure didn't build much of a concensus THAT time).

[idwiyo]

80. K&R Congrats! Long overdue!

[democrank]

82. Yes indeedy!

YAY!!!!

[MissMillie]

83. We can all quote Josh Lyman today!

[midnight]

84. K&R for equality

[uppityperson]

89. k&r and about time and !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Arugula Latte]

91. May Scalia's anger make him pop a major artery.

Congrats to all!

[Hekate]

92. Kick! Rec! Love!

[Beacool]

93. Wonderful news!!!

After their rulling yesterday on the Voting Rights Act, I wasn't sure how this would turn out.

[Zorra]

94. That photo, OMG, it's so beautiful, priceless.

Darn you, Hissyspit, you got me crying again!

[toby jo]

95. Edith Windsor, in that quiet little frame of a body what a big strong soul. Thank-you.

And thanks to all the couples who stood up against the tide. For sure that wasn't always easy.

[Sherman A1]

96. K&R

[Cleita]

97. Congratulations LGBT community on your well earned victory finally.

[progressoid]

98. "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

[sofa king]

99. Congratulations to us all!

I must caution all of you that this victory comes at a price. We will all have to work much, much harder in next year's mid-term elections, as Republicans finally have a hate-stick issue they can run on--an anti-gay Amendment.

[ctsnowman]

101. Great news!

[myrna minx]

102. Wipes away tears. K&R!

[Kurovski]

103. Super-duper thread, Hissyspit!

My brother in teh gay!

[Egnever]

105. So Awesome!

And about time!

Congrats to all GLBT people out there. I have been hoping for this for all of you for a long time!

[grahamhgreen]

108. Woo Hooooooo!

[ChaoticTrilby]

110. Hooray!

There's still a long way to go but I'm feeling really happy right now. Congrats, everyone. Keep up the good fight!

[underpants]

111. A truly GREAT day

[DonCoquixote]

112. Now that we have won

The real fight begins, making sure it STICKS. You know the newly freed dixie states will try to use this, so we need to shove GOP faces right back in the turds, and make sure we keep holding them down until they stop breathing.

[Yukari Yakumo]

114. Here, have a pic to celebrate the day.

[Jesus Malverde]

115. Castro tonight

It's unusually warm tonight in SF, a great evening for a celebration.

Police were in a rush to get the crowds off of the streets. A bit heavy handed, and creepily quite a few were sporting short sleeves with leather gloves (like they might get cooties).

[yellowcanine]

119. Leather gloves.....

Last edited Thu Jun 27, 2013, 10:40 PM - Edit history (2)

Leather gloves are (NOT) recognized by the CDC as an effective barrier against bodily fluid borne diseases, FWIW.

Meant to say - Not recognized. So it is unlikely the police would be using them for that reason, as they would likely know what the proper procedures were. My guess is that the leather gloves are just part of their uniform but I really don't know.

[Hissyspit]

125. Do they wear them with all crowd control?

[yellowcanine]

127. I don't know but I have seen cops wearing leather gloves in many situations.

I wouldn't read that much into it.

[bread_and_roses]

116. K & R !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

About time!

[markpkessinger]

120. DOMA HAS NOT BEEN STRUCK DOWN . . .

. . . ONLY Section 3, which concerns the recognition of same-sex marriages by agencies of the Federal government, has been struck down. The rest of the law, including the part that permits one state to refuse to recognize the validity of a same-sex marriage legally performed in another, remains intact. It's important that people understand this -- there is still much work to be done. Yes, yesterday's ruling is a big step forward, but we have not yet attained marriage equality.

[Hissyspit]

124. Yes, we know.

It says that all through the post.

[fascisthunter]

126. congrats to my sister and her wife

and millions more effected directly by this ruling. We all benefit when all are as equal as we are under any government.