Yesterday, progressives were going bat guano insane over the Supreme Court’s decision on one portion of the Voting Rights Act. Today, they are going…bat guano insane over the DOMA decision, based on their headlines
- Supreme Court strikes down DOMA
- Same-Sex Spouses Cheer DOMA’s Demise
- Supreme Court strikes down DOMA, Colorado impact weighed
- Supreme Court: DOMA is unconstitutional
- Supreme Court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act
- COURT STRIKES DOWN U.S. MARRIAGE ACT (love how the NY Times uses all caps, which is exceedingly rare for them)
- The Supreme Court declares DOMA unconstitutional
Many of those articles go on to point out that, nope, only a portion was shot down. Some, like that last link to the Washington Post, position it as having the whole law shot down (just to be clear, I’m not a big fan of DOMA). Here’s the USA Today, which also features a disingenuous headline
Supreme Court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act
A divided Supreme Court gave a major boost to gay and lesbian rights on Wednesday, striking down a key section of a federal law that denied federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples.
The justices declared unconstitutional part of the 17-year-old Defense of Marriage Act, a law that has denied federal benefits to married gays and lesbians in a dozen states, from Maine to Washington, and the District of Columbia.
In a 5-4 decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, said the federal law unconstitutionally denied equal treatment to gay and lesbian couples. “DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled of recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty,” Kennedy wrote.
“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,” Kennedy wrote.
But Kennedy was careful to say that the court’s conclusion about the Defense of Marriage Act was “confined to those lawful marriages” performed in states that already recognize same-sex marriage.
As to the other parts of DOMA, such as defining marriage as between a man and a woman and that the powers of recognizing marriage are left to the states, they are left in tact. This simply means that people who are legally married in the States that allow it cannot be denied federal benefits. This is equal protection under the law, as SCOTUS blog’s Kevin Russell notes
To be clear: Windsor does not establish a constitutional right to same sex marriage. It was important to the outcome that the couple in the case was legally married under state law. The equal protection violation arose from Congress’s disrespecting that decision by New York to allow the marriage.
Hot Air has more on what went on with California’s prop 8.
Well, I knew it was coming. SCOTUS viewed DOMA as an attack on a certain group of people. Which is wasn’t.
A group who chose to redefine the term “marriage” because they didn’t like creating their own terminology.
Now, words really don’t mean what they mean. Starting from Clinton to now, words are lies. Words don’t mean what you think they mean. They are whatever a judge decides, whenever they decide.
Interestingly, if SCOTUS is saying that all should be treated equally by the federal government, particularly in terms of benefits and taxes, what does this do to things like affirmative action? How about the progressive tax system, where some are taxed at higher rates than others? Tax credits for hybrids/EVs? Credits for having children? Home ownership?y
How about Obamacare, where companies with 50 or more employees are treated differently?
That could be be interesting if someone was willing to challenge in court.
Exactly Teach.
I’m also waiting for the pro-polygamists, animal lovers, etc.
but, this fight has never been about equal protection. They had that if they chose to get it. They just wanted to destroy the definition of “marriage”.
Points were made too, that maybe this will also push to remove the IRS spaghetti about filing jointly, filing married, filing single. All should be held to same tax scales.
Why is my head of household status no longer valid now that my kid is 18?