Bless God, I have lived to see this day.
The Supreme Court this morning overturned Section 3 of DOMA in a 5-4 vote as being an unconstitutional violation of due process and equal protection - meaning the federal government has to recognize same-sex marriage in those states where it is legal; text of the ruling is here. Commentary from SCOTUSblog editors:
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.
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.
The Court also in a roundabout way sent Prop 8 to the garbage can, also by a 5-4 vote; text of the ruling is here. Comment from Amy Howe at Scotusblog:
Here's a Plain English take on Hollingsworth v. Perry, the challenge to the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage: After the two same-sex couples filed their challenge to Proposition 8 in federal court in California, the California government officials who would normally have defended the law in court, declined to do so. So the proponents of Proposition 8 stepped in to defend the law, and the California Supreme Court (in response to a request by the lower court) ruled that they could do so under state law. But today the Supreme Court held that the proponents do not have the legal right to defend the law in court. As a result, it held, the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the intermediate appellate court, has no legal force, and it sent the case back to that court with instructions for it to dismiss the case.
Photos of plaintiff Edie Windsor, at the home of her attorney in New York City, as she heard that she won her case this morning, in the New Yorker.
Report on the rulings from NBC News, with some jubilant crowd reactions in the background:
Update, 12 noon: The ACLU has issued a FAQ on "Marriage for Same-Sex Couples in California," discussing the implications of the Court's ruling on Prop 8; a couple of notable excerpts:
A few final, legal steps must be completed before same-sex couples can once again marry in California, which should take only about a month. First, the Supreme Court’s ruling must become final, which will happen 25 days after the ruling. Under the Supreme Court’s rules, the party who loses a case has a right to ask the Court to re-hear the case within 25 days of the decision’s release. Petitions for re-hearing are very rarely granted, so it is unlikely that anything will change during this 25 days. Once the ruling is final, the Ninth Circuit will issue a “mandate” that will send the case back to the District Court. When the mandate is issued, the injunction against the enforcement of Prop 8 will take effect, and same-sex couples in California will once again have the freedom to marry. We expect that the State of California will issue guidance to all County Clerk offices in the state about when the decision becomes final and when those offices must resume issuing licenses on an equal basis to same-sex couples. Please note that couples should wait until the Supreme Court ruling is final and the Ninth Circuit issues a mandate to the District Court before attempting to obtain a marriage license or to marry, to ensure that your marriage is valid. . . .
Yes. The legal order (or injunction) that stops the State of California from enforcing Prop 8 applies to state officials throughout the state. This means that Prop 8 cannot be enforced anywhere in the state. There may be efforts to try to limit the effect of the injunction to apply to only some parts of the State but we strongly believe that those efforts are futile and will not succeed. . . .
If you live in another state and get married in California you will be legally married. However, depending on where you live, your home state may not respect your marriage. The Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Windsor striking down Section 3 of DOMA concerns only the federal government’s treatment of marriages. The ruling does not require states to recognize a valid marriage of a same-sex couple performed in another state. Thus, if you marry in California but live elsewhere, it is still possible that your home state will not recognize your marriage.Update, 12:30 p.m.: In California, Governor Jerry Brown has issued the following statement:
After years of struggle, the U.S. Supreme Court today has made same-sex marriage a reality in California. In light of the decision, I have directed the California Department of Public Health to advise the state’s counties that they must begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in California as soon as the Ninth Circuit confirms the stay is lifted.Update, 12:45 p.m.: At the Pentagon, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel has issued this statement:
The Department of Defense intends to make the same benefits available to all military spouses -- regardless of sexual orientation -- as soon as possible. That is now the law, and it is the right thing to do. The department will immediately begin the process of implementing the Supreme Court's decision in consultation with the Department of Justice and other executive branch agencies.Update, 1:00 p.m.: From aboard Air Force One en route to Africa, President Obama has issued the following statement:
I applaud the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act. This was 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. 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.
This ruling is a victory for couples who have long fought for equal treatment under the law; for children whose parents’ marriages will now be recognized, rightly, as legitimate; for families that, at long last, will get the respect and protection they deserve; and for friends and supporters who have wanted nothing more than to see their loved ones treated fairly and have worked hard to persuade their nation to change for the better.
So we welcome today’s decision, and I’ve directed the Attorney General to work with other members of my Cabinet to review all relevant federal statutes to ensure this decision, including its implications for Federal benefits and obligations, is implemented swiftly and smoothly.
On an issue as sensitive as this, knowing that Americans hold a wide range of views based on deeply held beliefs, maintaining our nation’s commitment to religious freedom is also vital. How religious institutions define and consecrate marriage has always been up to those institutions. Nothing about this decision - which applies only to civil marriages - changes that.
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.And in New York City, Edie Windsor, plaintiff in the DOMA case, had this to say, according to the Washington Post:
After learning of the Supreme Court ruling, Windsor broke into tears. “If I had to survive Thea, what a glorious way to do it, and she would be so pleased,” she said at a news conference. She thanked her lawyers and her allies, gay and straight: “We won all the way, so thank you from the bottom of my heart.”
Asked what Spyer would say to her if she were alive, Windsor replied, “‘You did it, honey.’”
And that's about as far as your Head Trucker can go today, I have to get some sleep now. But I'll have more reactions and analyses in my next post, sometime tonight.
Odd sensation, looking out my window at the green grass and the rose bushes and the sycamore tree and corners of the blue summer sky above: all is just as it was yesterday and all the days before, yet now there's something different about this plot of ground I live on, this green earth, this land of ours. A quick, sly thought whistles up from my heart to my eyes: we belong here, we are kindred, we are of the tribe - we are truly, fully Americans, and strangers no more.
We belong. And that makes all the difference.
Just one more:
%20Solitaire%20au%20cafe%CC%81%20(1921)%20gouache%20and%20pencil%20on%20paper39.8%20x%2028.2%20cm.jpg)
11 comments:
Good news!
Amazing! Fantastic!
I must say I was not entirely confident that SCOTUS would arrive at this outcome, despite the logic that was so clear. Another giant step forward for this nation. I look forward to the ways in which couples will exercise their rights, now that they are SCOTUS "approved".
Yes indeed fellas, good news and a giant step. Just breathtaking, and no stopping us now.
Wonderful news. Reading your piece brought tears to my eyes (but them I'm a sentimental old fool) Step by step you guys are getting there. It's just marvellous.
Now we push for same-sex marriage to be legalised here. NZ has already done it; but then, they've always been ahead of Australia.
Marvelous indeed, I hope both our countries will soon reach full equality for everyone nationwide.
I just finished reading the Opinions of SCOTUS on DOMA. The dissenting opinions are quite interesting and, even though I have no legal training, I think the dissenting arguments are somewhat compelling. I wish the ruling had addressed the points of dissent more specifically. Both sides of the argument seem to have merit.
But as with most Supreme Court decisions of late which are reflective of the divisiveness of the country at large, such split decisions are bittersweet: I think that, as the dissent has basically predicted, there will be further decisions coming out of this court regarding interstate recognition of same-sex marriage and national recognition of same-sex marriage. While such an outcome would be right and just, there will be many who will feel that because it comes out of the courts, they had no opportunity as citizens, pro or con, to make it so. As Scalia put it: "But the Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat."
This may be overstating because some issues demand a timely justice that will never be forthcoming from a democratic process that is slow to act and so often fraught with prejudice.
I am left with the sense that the US system of semi-soverign States with a central Federal government has become rather dysfunctional in our modern world where people are extremely mobile and where inconsistencies in state laws create chaos for some and opportunities for others to sometimes take advantage. So we try to make it work - it is a work in progress, hopefully making progress.
Well, as our President is fond of saying, we are always progressing towards a more perfect union. I hear what you say about the (apparent) logic of the dissents - but then, what alternative is there, Frank? Again, I hear you when you say that people in the modern world are very mobile and subject to inconsistencies in the laws from state to state - which reminds me as I'm sure it does you of Alvin Toffler's very prescient prediction 40+ years ago in Future Shock that the pace of change in the world would speed up dramatically, and damned if he wasn't right.
And to be quite frank, there are some changes in the modern world that I deplore. But none of us can shape the whole world to his own desires, unfortunately or not; we have to take the world as it is, at least until affordable personal intergalactic rocket ships are available. Then I suppose the disgruntled could always head out to where no man has gone before. Grin.
But the other side of the coin is this - Since the Englightenment 250+ years ago, and especially since the world wars and genocides and civil rights movements of the last century, we Westerners are increasingly impatient with the removal of all obstacles to the full and free enjoyment of that equality.
It would be lovely to wait patiently like a turtle on a rock for change to happen in every single state via the legislative process. Black people waited some 250 years in this country for slavery to be ended by Congress; and another 100 years for full civil rights legislation.
Women worked and campaigned and demonstrated for over 50 years simply for the right to vote, which came via constitutional amendment.
We gays waited worked and campaigned and demonstrated and on occasion even rioted - but still it was 34 years after Stonewall before the sodomy laws were struck down nationwide. They are still sitting there on the books in most of the 15 states that had them when that happy day arrived, ten years ago yesterday, not by legislative action but by Supreme Court ruling.
I well recall that day, I went out and bought a copy of the newspaper with the big headline on it. Because until that moment arrived, every night when my husband and I went to bed, with the little dog of course snuggling in with us - we were lawbreakers in the eyes of the state of Texas - and theoretically could have been jailed and fined on any day of the week for that simple action.
If the Supremes had not struck down the Texas law, it would still be in full force and effect today, I guarantee you. (The fact that it was rarely enforced is beside the point - it was the law.) And as you know, it's all moot for me now because my husband is dead.
But should we, or any other Texas couple, still be living under such legal opprobrium now, in 2013? Are you really suggesting, Frank, that a Supreme Court ruling is somehow not valid because it is not a legislative act?
If not for another Supreme Court ruling, the Loving case in 1967, I can tell you with almost the same certainty that Texas would still be forbidding the marriages of whites and blacks, now in 2013.
Yes, as I said, it would be nice if every legislative body were imbued with wisdom and a burning zeal for good laws. But here we are in the real world.
You can say, with the rightwingers, oh ain't it awful and oh ain't it undemocratic all you want to. But realistically, Frank - what do you really expect us gays to do, down here far out on the prairie, thousands of miles away from your comfy, hip, oh-so-tolerant blue state wonderland? How long, exactly, should we wait for the "proper" democratic solutions to arrive?
Or is it just possible that having an umpire at the top of the pyramid, such as the Supreme Court, is a good and even necessary thing when there are competing claims of necessity and right in a democracy? A referee to have the last word in what is or isn't a fair ball?
Just sayin'.
Russ, I think you overstate my case. To elaborate my own statement: some issues do demand a timely justice that will never be forthcoming from a democratic process that is slow to act, ideologic to the extreme, highly dysfunctional, and so often fraught with prejudice, - a justice that can only be expedited by the courts - so a ruling by the highest court was appropriate. My concern was that the dissenting opinions also have a "legal" logic that could be seen as weakening the ruling in some way. It would be a more solid victory had the citizens of the US demanded marriage equality through legislation as other countries have done. And this is not altogether precluded by the ruling yesterday. There is in the works a complete equality bill to be introduced in the Congress, though it will most likely take many years to get through.
To give the devil his due, I will grant that Scalia has a brilliant legal mind, and his opinions are written in a compelling style. But as far as jurisprudence goes, it's the majority opinion only that carries legal weight; what dissents are written are not binding on any further case.
Besides, the mood and attitudes of the country have changed; the tide is not going to run backwards now, at least not in our lifetimes. Not to say that the tide can never turn - look up the history of the Jews in Europe, just to take one example, and you will see that over the centuries, their acceptance or persecution came and went in waves. The same thing could very well happen to the gays, or any other minorities, depending on the vagaries of future history, but not I think in this century.
Finally, you have to realize that apart from the ignorant class of redneck rightwingers, the people who actually run the country - for good or ill as the case may be - all know Scalia for what he is: a brilliant, belligerent, bully, a loudmouthed chauvinist, and an unrepentant, unruly dinosaur thoroughly misplaced in the 21st century. His opinions are not as persuasive as his passion might suggest. He's Archie Bunker in a Brooks Brothers suit.
BTW skimming over the Wikipedia article on him as I just did reveals some highly interesting facts: such as that he attends only Tridentine masses in Latin, that at 17 he was already noted for being an archconservative - and astonishingly, that he and Justice Ginsberg are great friends, have been for years. They go to the opera together, and their families dine together every New Years Eve.
Seriously - I'm not making this up, go read for yourself.
Scalia's son is a Catholic priest whose parish does said Latin Mass.
Well that tells you a lot about Scalia's world, as does the medieval cap he wears on the bench. He would have cut a grand figure in the Inquisition.
Post a Comment