BREAKING: DOMA UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Love the public policy result, hate the jurisprudence. We are now on the cusp of creating a national gay marriage law by judicial fiat (some Alabama gay couple will be filing a federal lawsuit against Alabama tomorrow as it were demanding state recognition of their marriage citing this case, and most probably win because same sex marriage are now a fundamental right), using the hammer of equal protection, which essentially gives the power to SCOTUS to pass any law at any time if it does not leash itself, because laws by their very essence treat folks differently depending on what category they fit into.

If Kennedy wanted to avoid going where he effectively did as described above, he would have just said that Congress cannot recognize gay marriages legal in a state for some purposes, while denying federal benefits on the other, and essentially demanded that the Feds respect state laws on this when it comes to using the marriage category for handing out benefits, using federalism arguments rather than the equal protection hammer (lousy public policy, but more restrained jurisprudence). Kennedy chose not to do so.

Having said all of that, and essentially wrung my hands, it is indeed hard to image beyond race and gender, just what is out there that is as intimate and fundamental as adult marriage, and the attendant horror show of Balkanized state laws from a practical standpoint, or a law as execrable as DOMA, so in that sense it is not as if SCOTUS's use of the equal protection hammer was done fecklessly, or will be particularly conducive as a precedent for SCOTUS to expand the scope of what its hammer hits and eviscerates in the future.

Translation - You're happy enough with the result.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Plaintiffs are now running the media circuit.  A bit sensationalist, but certainly understood and it seems like they did a great job making their case. 

Fox isn't even covering this... if you still weren't convinced that they are NOT, in fact, a news organization. 

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

While yes I'm a lawyer, I am still a member of the human species, so just how could I not feel a nice warm glow of joy suffusing my soul? Who wants to feel like a marginalized second class citizen in this, or any other society?  

So, yes, at least this once, you have come up with an accurate "translation" of my text, Grumps.

[memphis]

I'm pretty disgusted by the "states rights" defense of unequal marriage laws. Gays in Alabama shouldn't have unequal opportunities before the law just because they live in Alabama. I thought we learned this lesson in the aftermath of Brown.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I'm pretty disgusted by the "states rights" defense of unequal marriage laws. Gays in Alabama shouldn't have unequal opportunities before the law just because they live in Alabama. I thought we learned this lesson in the aftermath of Brown.

That's the whole insane argument being made by the other side.  Their right to prevent people from being equal is apparently more important than those peoples' right to be equal.  It's a perverse and disgusting argument that the most conservative of America has used time and time again because they simply hate and distrust people who are not like them.  First it was the Catholics, then it was the blacks, then it was the gays... and it'll go on and on and on.  Great thing is that they lose every time.  

I wonder who's next?  

[Tender Branson]

[Torie]

Well, the next step is that marrying your favorite manikin that you place in the shot gun seat in your car to try to fool the cops when using the diamond lane, will become a fundamental right.  I guess they disagree with my bit about the expected future reach of the SCOTUS equal protection hammer or something. But at least the direction of the posited slippery slope was more creative than the tired old right to marry your pet dog bit, or flogging the polygamy hobbyhorse.  

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I'm pretty disgusted by the "states rights" defense of unequal marriage laws. Gays in Alabama shouldn't have unequal opportunities before the law just because they live in Alabama. I thought we learned this lesson in the aftermath of Brown.

The 10th Amendment is cut and dry, and marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution. Marriage laws are a states right, and the Supreme Court recognized it today. The right decision was made. I suspect Alabama and Utah will have equal marriage by 2025 the way the momentum is turning.

[Silent Hunter]

I'm pretty disgusted by the "states rights" defense of unequal marriage laws. Gays in Alabama shouldn't have unequal opportunities before the law just because they live in Alabama. I thought we learned this lesson in the aftermath of Brown.

The 10th Amendment is cut and dry, and marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution. Marriage laws are a states right, and the Supreme Court recognized it today. The right decision was made. I suspect Alabama and Utah will have equal marriage by 2025 the way the momentum is turning.

[memphis]

I'm pretty disgusted by the "states rights" defense of unequal marriage laws. Gays in Alabama shouldn't have unequal opportunities before the law just because they live in Alabama. I thought we learned this lesson in the aftermath of Brown.

The 10th Amendment is cut and dry, and marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution. Marriage laws are a states right, and the Supreme Court recognized it today. The right decision was made. I suspect Alabama and Utah will have equal marriage by 2025 the way the momentum is turning.

Public education is also not mentioned in the Constitution. Do you take issue with Brown?

[Bacon King]

I'm pretty disgusted by the "states rights" defense of unequal marriage laws. Gays in Alabama shouldn't have unequal opportunities before the law just because they live in Alabama. I thought we learned this lesson in the aftermath of Brown.

The 10th Amendment is cut and dry, and marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution. Marriage laws are a states right, and the Supreme Court recognized it today. The right decision was made. I suspect Alabama and Utah will have equal marriage by 2025 the way the momentum is turning.

I see your 10th amendment and raise you the 14th

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I agree with Scalia's Part I (which was one of the best opinions I've ever read), and the Court never should have decided this case.

That being said, I agree with the overall outcome, even if I think that they butchered the Constitutionality of hearing the case.  In the end, the result was a good decision for states' rights.

[memphis]

I agree with Scalia's Part I (which was one of the best opinions I've ever read), and the Court never should have decided this case.

That being said, I agree with the overall outcome, even if I think that they butchered the Constitutionality of hearing the case.  In the end, the result was a good decision for states' rights.

Do you take issue with Brown?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I agree with Scalia's Part I (which was one of the best opinions I've ever read), and the Court never should have decided this case.

That being said, I agree with the overall outcome, even if I think that they butchered the Constitutionality of hearing the case.  In the end, the result was a good decision for states' rights.

Do you take issue with Brown?

Brown has nothing to do with federal law.  It has to do with states violating 14th Amendment.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I agree with Scalia's Part I (which was one of the best opinions I've ever read), and the Court never should have decided this case.

That being said, I agree with the overall outcome, even if I think that they butchered the Constitutionality of hearing the case.  In the end, the result was a good decision for states' rights.

Do you take issue with Brown?

Brown has nothing to do with federal law.  It has to do with states violating 14th Amendment.

This has to do with the federal government violating the 14th Amendment.

[memphis]

I agree with Scalia's Part I (which was one of the best opinions I've ever read), and the Court never should have decided this case.

That being said, I agree with the overall outcome, even if I think that they butchered the Constitutionality of hearing the case.  In the end, the result was a good decision for states' rights.

Do you take issue with Brown?

Brown has nothing to do with federal law.  It has to do with states violating 14th Amendment.

Quibble all you want about the meaning of "federal law." Segregation statutes were indeed state laws, but the 14th Amendment is a critical part of this nation's legal system. And I wonder why it is that you (apparently) value states' rights over human rights.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I agree with Scalia's Part I (which was one of the best opinions I've ever read), and the Court never should have decided this case.

That being said, I agree with the overall outcome, even if I think that they butchered the Constitutionality of hearing the case.  In the end, the result was a good decision for states' rights.

Do you take issue with Brown?

Brown has nothing to do with federal law.  It has to do with states violating 14th Amendment.

This has to do with the federal government violating the 14th Amendment.

I think not, as that's not really possible here.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I agree with Scalia's Part I (which was one of the best opinions I've ever read), and the Court never should have decided this case.

That being said, I agree with the overall outcome, even if I think that they butchered the Constitutionality of hearing the case.  In the end, the result was a good decision for states' rights.

Do you take issue with Brown?

Brown has nothing to do with federal law.  It has to do with states violating 14th Amendment.

Quibble all you want about the meaning of "federal law." Segregation statutes were indeed state laws, but the 14th Amendment is a critical part of this nation's legal system. And I wonder why it is that you (apparently) value states' rights over human rights.

Yes; they were state laws that violated the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  The Fourteenth Amendment isn't at issue here because this wasn't a state law that was challenged.  I don't understand how you think this case is remotely related to Brown.

As for valuing human rights, I value human rights over states' rights, but I don't think marriage (in its contractual sense) is a human right.

[SteveRogers]

I agree with Scalia's Part I (which was one of the best opinions I've ever read), and the Court never should have decided this case.

That being said, I agree with the overall outcome, even if I think that they butchered the Constitutionality of hearing the case.  In the end, the result was a good decision for states' rights.

Do you take issue with Brown?

Brown has nothing to do with federal law.  It has to do with states violating 14th Amendment.

This has to do with the federal government violating the 14th Amendment.

I think not, as that's not really possible here.

Ok, someone needs to clear this up. Technically you're right as the 14th amendment equal protection clause applies only to state laws while equal protection as it applies to federal law is guaranteed via the 5th amendment due process clause. It's treated as the same equal protection guarantee though. That's why Kennedy's decision finds DOMA to be in violation of the 5th amendment rather than the 14th.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I agree with Scalia's Part I (which was one of the best opinions I've ever read), and the Court never should have decided this case.

That being said, I agree with the overall outcome, even if I think that they butchered the Constitutionality of hearing the case.  In the end, the result was a good decision for states' rights.

Do you take issue with Brown?

Brown has nothing to do with federal law.  It has to do with states violating 14th Amendment.

This has to do with the federal government violating the 14th Amendment.

I think not, as that's not really possible here.

Ok, someone needs to clear this up. Technically you're right as the 14th amendment equal protection clause applies only to state laws while equal protection as it applies to federal law is guaranteed via the 5th amendment due process clause. It's treated as the same equal protection guarantee though. That's why Kennedy's decision finds DOMA to be in violation of the 5th amendment rather than the 14th.

Right; but that's why it's entirely different from Brown.  Clearly the 14th Amendment trumps states' rights.  That's why I don't disagree with Brown.

[Cryptic]

Great news and a historic ruling! 

[memphis]

I agree with Scalia's Part I (which was one of the best opinions I've ever read), and the Court never should have decided this case.

That being said, I agree with the overall outcome, even if I think that they butchered the Constitutionality of hearing the case.  In the end, the result was a good decision for states' rights.

Do you take issue with Brown?

Brown has nothing to do with federal law.  It has to do with states violating 14th Amendment.

Quibble all you want about the meaning of "federal law." Segregation statutes were indeed state laws, but the 14th Amendment is a critical part of this nation's legal system. And I wonder why it is that you (apparently) value states' rights over human rights.

Yes; they were state laws that violated the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  The Fourteenth Amendment isn't at issue here because this wasn't a state law that was challenged.  I don't understand how you think this case is remotely related to Brown.

As for valuing human rights, I value human rights over states' rights, but I don't think marriage (in its contractual sense) is a human right.

I'm foolish for getting into a legal debate. I'm not a lawyer and have only very vague understandings of legal matters. It is hard to see how state laws against gay marriage will now not be brought before the court under the 14th though. As for this case's connection to Brown, both are cases of broad groups of people being treated differently and disadvantageously before the law because of innate characteristics that are beyond their control.  It doesn't take years of legal training to make that connection. Maybe it's merely emotional/moral outrage, but rooting for the team against treating all marriages the same leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I agree with Scalia's Part I (which was one of the best opinions I've ever read), and the Court never should have decided this case.

That being said, I agree with the overall outcome, even if I think that they butchered the Constitutionality of hearing the case.  In the end, the result was a good decision for states' rights.

Do you take issue with Brown?

Brown has nothing to do with federal law.  It has to do with states violating 14th Amendment.

Quibble all you want about the meaning of "federal law." Segregation statutes were indeed state laws, but the 14th Amendment is a critical part of this nation's legal system. And I wonder why it is that you (apparently) value states' rights over human rights.

Yes; they were state laws that violated the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  The Fourteenth Amendment isn't at issue here because this wasn't a state law that was challenged.  I don't understand how you think this case is remotely related to Brown.

As for valuing human rights, I value human rights over states' rights, but I don't think marriage (in its contractual sense) is a human right.

I'm foolish for getting into a legal debate. I'm not a lawyer and have only very vague understandings of legal matters. It is hard to see how state laws against gay marriage will now not be brought before the court under the 14th though. As for this case's connection to Brown, both are cases of broad groups of people being treated differently and disadvantageously before the law because of innate characteristics that are beyond their control.  It doesn't take years of legal training to make that connection. Maybe it's merely emotional/moral outrage, but rooting for the team against treating all marriages the same leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.

Oh, I agree that the 14th route will be the next step for those states that don't recognize it.  and yes, the cases both involve groups being treated differently, but they're two very different legal principles.  Maybe I misinterpreted what you said before, but when you asked about Brown, it seemed like you were implying that my views here were inconsistent with also believing that Brown was properly decided, and I was trying to point out that one can side with the dissenters here (not that I do) and still agree with the majority in Brown.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

How did I know this would happen?

[TDAS04]

Great news!