Yee-haw ... DOMA is dead!
- 7Jun 26, '13 by heronhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3454811.html
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.
- 3Jun 26, '13 by DoGoodThenGoJust to be clear, only the section of DOMA dealing with restricting federal benefits to same sex married couples was struck down. The remaining parts of the act/law are still in effect.
Still all and all a good day for rule of law.
- 2Jun 26, '13 by herring_RN GuideExcerpts from Supreme Court gay marriage rulings
... — "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 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. 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."
— "What has been explained to this point should more than suffice to establish that the principal purpose and the necessary effect of this law are to demean those persons who are in a lawful same-sex marriage. This requires the court to hold, as it now does, that DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution."
— "DOMA's unusual deviation from the usual tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage here operates to deprive same-sex couples of the benefits and responsibilities that come with the federal recognition of their marriages. This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of disapproval of that class. The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in question 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."
— "The power the Constitution grants it also restrains. And though Congress has great authority to design laws to fit its own conception of sound national policy, it cannot deny the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. "
Read more: Excerpts from Supreme Court gay marriage rulings (text) - Associated Press - POLITICO.com
- 2Jun 26, '13 by DoGoodThenGoMuch of DOMA was dead when San Francisco began marrying same sex couples and a further nail driven into that coffin when MA changed it's marriage laws. Once one state (now eleven or twelve depending upon how you look at things) made gay marriage legal the ground shifted.
Unlike say France or Spain where marriage laws are decided by a central government, the United States leaves the matter to states. Indeed the issue never was "gay marriage" per se but the rights and benefits enjoyed by straight married couples and by extension their children. The last bit you see referred to over and over again; you cannot say children born of one legal marriage are more worthy than those of an other. So you either have to scrap all the benefits or hand them out equally, end of story. Those that wrote and passed DOMA couldn't possibly know how the world would look today with so many gay men and women as parents of either their own biological children and or adopted. Each time those children apply for any sort of federal benefit they are (or were) classified as "different".
Of course the larger issue is what happens in future to the one thousand and four hundred some odd benefits the federal government bestows on married couples. Many of these came out of an era when women were chattel and did what they were told, in return they were dependent upon men (usually their husbands) for their economic security. This system under some current federal schemes vastly benefits certain women (those that marry well and have limited to little of their own), over those that work their entire lives but remain unmarried.
- 1Jun 26, '13 by KelRN215, BSN, RNA great day, indeed. Part of me feels that the ruling on Prop 8 was a cop out and that we missed an opportunity to declare all same sex marriage bans unconstitutional but another part of me does have to agree with the majority that the Prop 8 supporters had no standing on which to appeal the lower court's decision when the state had no intention of doing so.
Part of me was also kinda hoping that we would declare Prop 8 out and out unconstitutional and invalidate all gay marriage bans in that ruling and that the South would secede again.
- 1Jun 26, '13 by sharpeimom GuideA great day! Now my three cousins and many friends' marriages can be as legal as mine.
Now we just have to strongarm the remaining twelve states into changing their collective minds. PA is so ****** conservative, with what my Southern husband refers to as "footwashing Baptists" at the helm, that it will be awhile and take a great deal of persuasion
to change enough minds to pass it.
Before hoards of Baptists line up to come after us, he uses that term because he was a high school student, there was a very conservative Baptist church down the street and when the boys and girls would un down the street to the football field as part
of phys ed class, the members would offer to wash their feet so they'd be "real" Christians instead of heathens.
- 3Jun 27, '13 by VivaLasViejas, ASN, RN GuideI was so stoked to hear about this first thing this morning!! Now my son and his dear partner will be able to get married like they should've been permitted to do 2 years ago when they decided to make it permanent. I am ECSTATIC for them both, and for all Americans, gay and straight, who love freedom!
It's morning in America once again.