WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court today ruled that same-sex couples that are legally married shall be entitled to the same treatment under federal law as their opposite-sex married couples.
“Today’s DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) ruling is a historic step forward marriage equality,” President Obama tweeted after the decision was released.
“By history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States,” the court’s decision stated. “DOMA violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government. The Constitution’s guarantee of equality “must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot” justify disparate treatment of that group. DOMA cannot survive under these principles. Its unusual deviation from the tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage operates to deprive same-sex couples ofthe benefits and responsibilities that come with federal recognition of their marriages. This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of disapproval of a class recognized and protected by state law”
63 thoughts on “Supreme Court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act”
” Tax laws and inheritance laws were establish from history and common laws from previous civilized societies to promote the family. No society in history has survive after it accepted homosexual conduct.”
Here you are not referencing law, but suppositions. It is insufficient to justify actions based on historical references because we have seen as a Republic, history is full of defective philosophies. Our courts have worked to correct such defects (Brown v. Board of Education, Loving v. Virginia, Yoder v.Wisconsin, et al).
There are times where morals are trumped by basic rights under our Constitution. Should basic Constitutional rights be ignored when the behavior is deemed immoral? Iowa Supreme Court just decided a case to that extent, when a judgement against a drunk driver (immoral) was overturned because of an illegal search (Fourth Amendment).
In doing so, Justices conclude that subverting basic constitutional rights in favor of immoral behavior goes against the ideals of a free society.
You made my point.
So does that mean Peter L can now legally merry the neighbors dog? It is his right.
Jeepers, you’re stupid!
Under other circumstances I would give you a hard time for calling someone a name but not in this case.
😀
WoW-why would you even say something like that? Ignorance is truly bliss.
Sorry but I have to disagree with you LVS, ignorance means without knowing,in her case as much as I hate to say it, Sika is right.
@maybe-I wasn’t referring to Sika-I was referring to skankie girls comments about Peter L.
Besides, she spelled marry wrong.
I know you were referring to skankie and not sika, what I was saying was that her remark wasn’t out of ignorance but out of stupidity.
@maybe-OK-she is ignorant and stupid. Can’t spell either.
I am NOT talking about Peter L, but alot of guys have already married skankie female dogs.
Here’s an interesting note that might put this in perspective.
DOMA was introduced to the House by Bob Garr and Don Nickles, two republicans in response to a lawsuit in Hawaii filed by two same sex people who wanted to get married. The Hawaii supreme court had ruled that the state could not deny them that right, since Hawaii, just like Iowa, has an equal rights provision.
These guys were scared to death that if ssm became popular in Hawaii, other states would follow suit and ssm marriage would be accepted everywher.
Hence, they cooked up DOMA, for one reason and one reason only. To deny a specific group of citizens their civil rights as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and US Constitution.
This has nothing to do with tradition, the bible, nature, genetics of marrying your car. It’s the word of our constitution.
This is why it’s important to silence hateful toads like Bob VanderPlaats, whose only purpose in life is to DENY certain people their inalienable rights.
I don’t like guns. I wish they didn’t exist. But it’s your constitutional right to own one. So I accept that. Now it’s up to you to accept this with some sort of grace.
I know you are referring to me when you say that, as I have said before the only information I had on that was from CNN and apparently that wasn’t entirely correct. I admit that I am now totally ignorant on that subject so until I know more I will try to refrain from commenting on it. It is no secret that I believe that same sex marriage is morally wrong and goes against the bible but that is my interpretation or opinion.
No, Maybe, I really wasn’t talking to you. I was talking to those people like Tim, who tried to use all kinds of irrelevant things to argue against this decision. But I appreciate your genuine reply.
And I say what does the bible have to do with anything? isnt there a separation of church and state? since when does the church make law? The bible is simply a fictional book.
Exactly and then watch here, who wants to subvert the constitution because of their own hatred and fear.
I agree with you completely, Pete. I am trying to explain what this whole issue was about. There are those who are determined to see it as some sort of “gay” thing or “liberal” signal.
It is not. It is a tiny microcosm in the ongoing history of the United States. You’re absolutely correct when you say that the constitution is a fluid document, and is subject to a nip and tuck now and again, but the basic premise is freedom for all. That will never change.
When someone comes along and tries to insert language (like DOMA) that deliberately attempts to deny a specific group of people their constitutional right, it is tossed out.
“Instead religious kooks waste our time with initiatives like DOMA and other measures designed to exclude and demean.”
just thought this needed to be said again.
@Peter L.-I have not always agreed with you and I guess that is a good thing, but, you do make some good points.
I am atheist. I object to your statement.
“I guess people still aren’t understanding that marriage is a religious practice”
I got my marriage license at a government court house. issued by the state of Iowa. We went to the justice of the peace for the proceedings. I did not have one GOD DAMN thing to do with the church. Even when I got divorced. It went thru the state of Iowa, and Iowa laws. Once again it had NOTHING to do with the church. It is YOUR opinion only that marriage is church sanctioned. Everyone who wants to get married needs a state issued license, unless common law. In my opinion, the church is only another outlet for announcing your marriage.
Your statements confuse me as you also stated this.
“The only legal recognition for a civil union by the government should be done by the magistrate, and yes, without prejudice or concern for sexual orientation, or plans on whether the newly unified couple is planning on having sex at all”.
If by this you mean “with a marriage license” I agree totally. But then again I was under the impression that obtaining the marriage license is all that is needed to be legally married.
As I stated above,historically the church has had its nose into alot over the years. But in reality they have no business voicing their opinion with many of them. such as doling out marriage licenses. as long as I can remember that is a gov issue.
@Peter L.-although I was married in the church (my wife’s wish) I really think the religion should not have any input at all in any government function or rule. If people (of any sex) want to get married in the church that should be up to them. If they want a civil wedding that should be legal as well. I get upset when I see the politicians wasting so much time and money on religious issue such as gay marriage and abortion. They have no business in politics.
I do agree with your last statements Peter and LVS.
@Peter L.-Agreed.
Will someone please explain to me when separate but equal became a constitutional doctrine?
“What they did was make it so the government will accept gay marriage, benefits will go to a gay partner. Therefore making gay marriage not only legal but acceptable.”
Incorrect. I am not sure where you read that interpretation, but it sure was not from SCOTUS.
“What they did was say DOMA was unconstitutional. They didn’t do anything else. It’s up to the individual states to decide whether or not they will recognize same sex marriage. Iowa already does.”
100% Correct.
It’s all about the Constitutional right to equal treatment under the law. Nothing more, nothing less. Same concept was reached in Iowa under Varnum v. Polk. You cannot treat one party any differently than another.
happy guy always gave me a hard time, he said all I watched was fox news. The interpretation I had for the DOMA decision I heard on CNN, apparently they were wrong and that made me wrong.
Now all these Gay Republicans can get married.
Democrats are the gay ones, dummy!
Although a couple may celebrate with a church wedding, the marriage itself is simple a civil contract which is why there are divorce laws — rules to break a civil contract. That is why the Iowa Supreme Court agreed that churches could decide whether they would allow same sex marriage in the church. If magistrates perform heterosexual marriages, they must also perform same sex marriages.
Marriage is between a man a woman not a man and man or a woman and woman. It has been that way since the the first man and woman walked the earth. It is that way to promote healthy and cohesive society. Tax laws and inheritance laws were establish from history and common laws from previous civilized societies to promote the family. No society in history has survive after it accepted homosexual conduct. Look at the what happened to the Greeks and Romans their civilizations fell apart when they started down the path to accept homosexual conduct. Homosexual conduct is not a civil right it is a choice. There is no gene or physical disability that makes a person a homosexual. It is a choice and we cannot change thousands of years of what works for a choice that is going to leading to further degrading of our culture. I know some of you are going to call me a bigot but I do not care what you do in your private life but changing the definition of marriage because of someone sexual choice is wrong.
Tim, your argument is wasted in this particular case. Marriage is not mentioned anywhere in the United States Constitution – not anywhere – between anybody. This case is about an unconstitutional amendment. Nothing more, nothing less.
If you would like to argue man/woman/genetics et al, find a suitable group to discuss your ignorance.
This decision has NOTHING to do with any of those things. It’s not about ALLOWING anything. It’s not about DESTROYING anything. It’s about striking down an unconstitutional amendment.
Have we said it enough times for it to soak in?
Peter: I actually agree with you about homosexuality being nature’s way to control our population explosion. All kinds of animals can control the sex of their babies to suit the need of the environment. Some animals can even change sexes if needed. It wouldn’t be surprising to find that homosexuality is somehow written into the human genome as a means of controlling the population.
That’s it!
Damn well said buddy!!!
because as history has proven. religious people think they have the right to stick their noses in other peoples business.
It’s the government that sticks in nose into everybody’s business, you dummy!
yes , they do also
since when does the government follow the bill of rights or the constitution now days?
MAYBE! You can’t have it both ways! You can’t ignore the constitution for equal rights issues yet hold it up word for word for guns! It doesn’t work that way!
You show me where it mentions the word gays in the constitution. You show me that our founding fathers put in the constitution that gays should be allowed to marry and have full benefits of a married couple and I will call KIMT and on the news I will apologize to you.
It doesn’t! It also doesn’t say marriage is between a man and a woman! It says NOTHING about marriage! ZERO! That’s one of the reasons DOMA is unconstitutional!
@maybe….I hate to say it pal, but she’s RIGHT.
We CANNOT be hypocritical in that sense. If we want the Constitution to be upheld, it HAS to be across the board. We don’t have the right to infringe on people’s personal choices like that. Hey, I’m not gay but I don’t personally have a problem with gay people. Whatever they want to do should be their business. LESS government…remember?!
@maybe…you get it yet dumbass? lol.
don’t you ever call me a dumbass, unless you mean it. I explained everything above.
@maybe…relax, it was a joke. In the same manner in which you said to me “Nicely said dumbass” on Whiners Den.
I appologize if it ruffled your feathers, it was meant in fun.
I know it was a joke, I was joking too.
UGH!! You really had me there. I was like SHIT!, that wasn’t what I wanted to happen…LMFAO.
Nicely done. 😀
hell in a hand basket with the libs leading the way.
Oh come on! All they did was strike down the clearly unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act! It’s only been around since 1996 and should never have become law in the first place! What they did, in effect, was put the constitution back to its original state! I thought you were an advocate for smaller government! Why would you want to have a law that unnecessarily interferes in a previously uncomplicated issue?
What they did was make it so the government will accept gay marriage, benefits will go to a gay partner. Therefore making gay marriage not only legal but acceptable.
Oh stop it. What they did was say DOMA was unconstitutional. They didn’t do anything else. It’s up to the individual states to decide whether or not they will recognize same sex marriage. Iowa already does.
Holy shit…I think I might actually agree with sikastupd. I feel weird.
The governemnt has and HAD no business being in the issue of marriage in the first place. Like Peter L. said, marriage is a religious sacrament. If the states wanted to deal with a civil union and make some sort of ruling on that…fine. But the US government has no right to tell anyone they can or can’t get married. Isn’t that one of the reasons we fought for out independence? To seperate church from state?
Personally, I don’t care if someone is gay or not and wants to make a family and have the same benefits as a married man and woman. What’s the difference as far as MAN is concerned? God will judge them on if it’s right or wrong, it’s not our place.
OK….someone please help me…I just agreed with sikastupd. It’s the only make sense comment I’ve ever read from her. Geez…I guess it’s true…ANYTHING CAN happen.
Ugh.
You ARE weird. That’s why you feel weird.
I’m only wierd because it rubs off from you…:D
Sorry…WEIRD.
Dont tell anyone…OK? but i agree with sikastupd too. just this one time.
You can blame Speaker Boehner and his caucus. If they had not decided to defend DOMA there would not have been standing.
Hurray SCOTUS !!!!
At long last!