Supreme Court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act in 5-4 vote

Discuss

37 Responses to “Supreme Court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act in 5-4 vote”

  1. Christopher says:

    I clicked “Like” on this article, but that hardly seems strong enough.

  2. davex says:

    From page 77 of Scalia’s dissenting opinion: “Het! Het! Het!”

  3. bingo says:

    …and SCOTUS joins the 21st century…well, side from Scalia and Alito, who are  bunkering down in a reproduction of a 19th century man-cave now in fear of “the gays” getting them.

  4. Aloisius says:

    I might not have gotten everything I wanted from Obama, but he appointed two of the supreme court justices that struck down this monstrosity. With Romney or god-forbid, McCain/Palin, we would have ended up with another Scalia believing racism is over and DOMA is valid because the courts have no authority to overturn laws by a democratically elected congress (wtf?).

    • Yeah, as I’ve said before and will no doubt say again, I wouldn’t mind Scalia nearly as much if he was consistent with these arguments, instead of trotting out judicial limitations only when it’s convenient to rulings that aren’t going his way. 

    • Jennifer Kozelka says:

      …And another uninformed voter; tsk tsk tsk… the schools today and they wonder why we are lagging behind other countries in education.  We don’t even know our own constitution!! Excuse me Aloisius; IS IT?  The courts do not have authority to overturn laws voted on by the majority of voters in individual states.  Technically the courts did not overturn DOMA.  The decision was the federal government is not going to rule against gays getting married and left it up to the states.  The fact of the matter is that California voters who voted on PROP 8 AND GOT THE MAJORITY OF VOTE THAT MADE IT THE LAW… had a State Supreme Court that said FU Californians.. .you do not matter… MINORITY RULE!  Before you make comments please know all your facts.  DOMA may not be challenged in the Supreme Court again, but make no mistake about it the matter in other ways will be brought to the forefront again. When a father wants to marry his daughter or a man wants to adopt his girlfriend or the polygamists rape their children naming them as spouses they will use this ruling as  the standard!  Congratulations HOMOSEXUALS; because civil unions were not enough for you, because you wanted to rip the morality out of this country taking a page out of the TERRORISTS playbook and use our freedoms against us you have single handedly opened the door for incestual relations to be the “norm” of this country.  You have singlehandedly opened the door for hundred of innocent children who are at the mercy of sick minded parents, less protection BECAUSE YOU WANTED IT FOR YOU EVERYONE ELSE BE DAMNED.  I never had a problem with homosexuals until they started riding their bikes around my city naked and started shoving their lifestyle down my throat.  I am a Christian person and as much as I would love to say I hope you burn in hell; I will pray for you instead that you realize what you have done.  

  5. lasermike026 says:

    Yesterday the voting rights act was gutted.  Get ride of this court.

  6. huskerdont says:

    To quote a certain late night host, “It’s a great day for America!”

  7. MattyQ says:

    Additionally, the California Supreme Court decision to allow petitioners of Prop 8 to appeal the ruling that made it unconstitutional has been vacated. Unless a further appeal is made, California has its same-sex marriage back. 

    • Christopher says:

      And here’s hoping the death of DOMA will soon mean every state has same-sex marriage.

      • Brainspore says:

        The California decision could help provide some major momentum in that direction. As of today a full 30 percent of Americans now live in states where same-sex marriage is legal.

        • Christopher says:

          I think the majority opinion in today’s decision regarding DOMA could also provide major momentum in that direction. They acknowledge that DOMA’s sole purpose was unjustifiable discrimination–and that same language could apply to all those state amendments banning same-sex marriage.

  8. Nash Rambler says:

    Woo hoo!  It shouldn’t have been so close, and it shouldn’t have taken so long, but I can proudly give democracy a gold star next to its’ name today.

  9. Boundegar says:

    I am deeply concerned about all the traditional marriages the Supreme Court just destroyed.

  10. jameseyjamesey says:

    Suck a dick prop 8!

  11. Allen Taylor Garvin says:

    The court did not strike down the Defence of Marriage Act as a whole. They struck down section 3.

    Section 2, which provides one of the only exceptions in US legal history to the “Full Faith and Credit” constitutional doctrine is still in full force.

    And, there are some other questions here: What happens if a gay couple is married in one state, and move to a state that does not recognize gay marriage, as is their right under section 2. Are federal benefits of marriage retained? What happens to things like federally-guaranteed hospital visitation rights when travelling in such a state?

    • Christopher says:

      It seems like a punt, but consider this very relevant section from the decision:

      The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and 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 decision only applied to Section 3, but this language is broad enough it could be used in future cases to invalidate DOMA entirely.

      I don’t like the fact that it’s not over yet–justice delayed is justice denied, after all–but for those of us who feared a setback this is a step forward.

    • llazy8 says:

       Yeah, I see those issues as being designed to cause future lawsuits which will get to the Supreme Court within 10 years, and of couse force a federal ruling allowing homo-marriage.  Looks like they just want Congress to deal with it first, hopefully to avoid a bussing-type situation in the South.

    • AlexG55 says:

       I don’t know if full faith and credit applies to straight marriages either. I think some states don’t recognise first-cousin marriages from states where they’re legal.

  12. kmoser says:

    Awesome: the vote was 5-4. Sad: the vote was 5-4.

  13. Antinous / Moderator says:

    You do know that he was being sarcastic?

  14. isomorphic says:

    Easy, there, Timmy.  I think you missed an implicit “/sarcasm” at the end of Boundegar’s post.  Or I did in yours.

Leave a Reply