Supreme Court DOMA and Prop 8 Watching Thread
The Supreme Court ruled 5-to-4 on Wednesday that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstituional. Roberts dissents. Scalia dissents. DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment.
From the decision: “DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled ot recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty.”
Update on the Prop 8 case: The court does not reach the merits of this case, instead ruling that the Petitioners (the private citizens seeking to enforce Prop 8 after the State of California refuses to appeal the District Court’s ruling to the 9th Circuit) lacked standing to bring their appeal. That means that the District Court’s ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional is upheld, and that means same sex marriage is now once again legal in California.
That’s great news!
Readers who are interested in watching how this unfolds should click over the SCOTUSBlog, who are liveblogging the decision and the dissents.
On Prop 8, it looks like they decided that there was no standing to appeal, so they are sending it back to the Ninth with instructions to vacate their ruling.
So it looks like Prop 8 is dead too!
From SCOTUSBlog:
Scalia’s dissent on DOMA includes this choice bit of hypocrisy:
Which didn’t stop him from voting to overturn part of the VRA — which was rather overwhelmingly democratically adopted.
Near total victory for the forces of gay marriage and nothing short of a route for social conservatism. Scalia reverts to his pre Roberts court persona and issues a vintage rant loaded with hatred and bile, the true essence of this very little man.
I’m thinking that this is the beginning of the end concerning marriage benefits, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing really.
What criteria is marriage going to be based on now? Love? How do you enforce that? Is the government going to tell a couple of straight guys or girls that want to get married solely for the benefits, that they can’t because they don’t love each other?
Yeah, I definitely see this coming .
Wonkette rounds up the wingnut reaction to today’s decisions from Twitter. From people I expect FBH would be completely at home with.
if you cant be the only one to have em, FBH…. NO ONE CAN!!!!!!!!!!
so spaketh jesus.
hoo boy.
so FBH is under the assumption that there has never been a straight couple that got married soley for some benefit? I don’t understand this argument. Sham marriages have been a part of marriage since marriage existed.
werent most marriages until a couple hundred years ago for land/alliance measures?.. so…. ALL marriages were entirely for benefits.
haha anybody who watches Game of Thrones knows people don’t marry for love.
well…. SOME marry for love. and they end up coming down with a serious case of “sword in bowels”
Hey, I don’t think government should be involved with marriage anyway, and I think this may bring that concept to fruition. No benefits mean government is less involved, and that’s a good thing.
LOL!