Now same sex couples can get married again in California, for real, for good. And they can bring in their mates from abroad!
UPDATES OF OTHER COVERAGE:
[From SCOTUSblog]
Amy Howe: 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.
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.
Summaries from SCOTUSblog’s Amy Howe of today’s two big marriage equality cases are now included in the text.
Its about f**king time! We DO NOT live in a Theocracy — so for those Evangelical, Right Wingers…get OVER IT! Mind your own business and focus on your own lives!
I’ve always felt everyone should be miserable in love. And now, they can…
That is touching, in its way.
Lol.
Justice Kennedy wrote: Congress had no business undermining a state’s decision to extend “the recognition, dignity and protection” of marriage to same-sex couples.
And yet the ruling left intact a separate DOMA provision that states need not recognize same-sex marriages performed by other states.
Diamond,
As a matter of law, can you enlighten me as to the over-riding legal principal upon which the 5 liberal Justices based their decision that equality must apply federally – but at the same time, equality need not be applied by the states?
And I will not buy a 10th Amendment argument, as “equality” over-rides that article of law – as we have seen by the CRA of 1964.
The question that they didn’t address was … not before the court! That is why … they didn’t address it!
Now they could have reached out and addressed it, but you’d be screaming about judicial activism. (Or, if they came down the other way, I would.)
Kennedy spelled out the federalism argument (which would lead to your conclusion) but said that he wasn’t relying entirely on it, specifically to prevent that being a necessarily implication of the decision. The principle at hand is that the states have the right to decide what constitutes a marriage (in this respect, unlike with interracial marriages due to the Loving decision) and the federal government has to respect it in its own dealings as well, because otherwise it undercuts the state’s ability to confer onto those couples a truly and fully recognized marriage.
Other cases will come, at a suitably slow pace to satisfy Justice Kennedy, testing whether other states must recognize the same-sex marriages performed in the 13 states that now allow them. It’s not yet clear which way they will turn out. Prior to Loving, interracial marriages were accepted in some states that didn’t allow them, but not in others.
You should check out the long discussion on this decision in Slate between (primarily) Eric Posner and Emily Bazelon.
“The question that they didn’t address was … not before the court! That is why … they didn’t address it!”
The 5 liberal Justices brought the question in.
What the hell do you think you’re trying to say here? The 5 non-far-right justices (not “liberal,” especially where Kennedy is concerned, and to a lesser extent Breyer) didn’t “bring this in” or they would have decided it. They avoided doing so.
Come back, little Sheba!
The question was brought in by the act of their unmistakable duplicity. And the avoidance you cite is why I say they are fucking pussies. Thank you for helping me make my point Diamond.
You’re writing gibberish. I could probably help you most by deleting it, but I won’t.
The SCOTUS had an opportunity to address whether gay marriage, or the prohibition of it, is constitutional. Unfortunately, I don’t see that they did that. By remanding Prop 8 back to the lower courts due to lack of standing (despite CA rulings that say the public/proponents have the ability defend a proposition), they unfortunately did not provide guidance on it. Now we have to wait for the next round to work its way up with someone that they deem to have standing.
I struggle with how they would have actually ruled if they did not rely upon lack of standing. I still don’t see how they ruled there is no standing…it places too much power in the AG to decide what is constitutional or not in terms of propositions.
On one hand, looks at their DOMA decision and says that they would have ruled in favor of gay marriage. On the other, there seems to be clear thought process that it is a state issue and the Federal government should respect the state’s decision. Prop 8 struck down gay marriage so would they have ruled that the people had spoken in CA and there is no constitutional prohibition on it.
Unfortunately, there will be lots of other issues coming up with it including whether a prohibition on gay marriage is constitutional, whether county clerks have to abide by the lower court rulings, and the ability of the AG to determine what they want to defend and what they don’t want to. The second is of interest to me because it seems that they don’t technically need to but practically they should, but in a rule of law society the rules do mean something. The third seems to be without checks and balances on the face of it. I am sure that I am missing some clear as mud legal theory though out there.
“I struggle with how they would have actually ruled if they did not rely upon lack of standing. I still don’t see how they ruled there is no standing…it places too much power in the AG to decide what is constitutional or not in terms of propositions.”
The 5 liberal Justices are fucking pussies.
Ya know dude, it’s really difficult to take you seriously sometimes. If you had actually bothered to check before spouting off, you would know that Justices Roberts and Scalia were among the 5 who voted for lack of standing.
Sotomayor and Kennedy voted for standing.
Do a little reading before you fly off the handle!
Skally’s too busy teaching little girls to shoot weapons than to actually get his facts straight.
Priorities define a man. Enough said.
I was talking about the DOMA decision .. idiot.
I was talking about the DOMA decision .. mf.
No you weren’t. You clearly quoted a comment on the Prop 8 case.
I know that it hurts, skally, so you can get away with a little language today. But just bear in mind that tomorrow someone is going to gay marry you and there ain’t nothin’ you can do about it.
me?
“I struggle with how they would have actually ruled if they did not rely upon lack of standing.”
It sounds to me that that the proponents of Prop 8 didn’t have “a leg to stand on”
Ha ha…in all seriousness though, I do wish that they would have just ruled upon the constitutionality and put it to rest.
I think this was a responsible decision.
I won’t write three thousand words in legalese about why, but simply put:
Justice in America is deliberate, sometimes painfully slow, but we must always allow it to play out. A “rash” decision was not in order here. Instead, it allowed the basis for careful, considerate debate in the coming months, years decades.
Abe Lincoln freed slaves in 1863, but when I was a kid, blacks still knocked on the back door in some places, in fact they hung them in Weed, California!
my point is plain. The system will work, provided it’s not hijacked. The Gay community did a wonderful job at improving public perceptions (who knows maybe even some more African Americans will support the right). It takes time.
Somebody should explain to Mr. Tardif the concept of separate not being equal.
I feel like I am getting close to my three thousand words. So I will refrain from posting the BEST QUOTE from Sacramento last night.
Good points…slow and steady can win the race. I would like it just to be resolved though. There are too many open items for them to consider in the future. Plus, it also gives the county clerks the possibility (not sure if actual or not) to still implement Prop 8 in all but 2 counties.
Yeah, unlike Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, I am very much aware that there are 58 Counties in California. While I am not homosexual and understand the POWER of the whole state allowing same sex unions/marriage, I would say if we got ten we’d be good.
Who gives a shit about Yolo and Del Norte anyway. One aspect that has frightened me throughout this battle is the need for greed held by some in this fight. I was taught to “wet my beak” as it were. Fifty six is as good as fifty eight right now. There are bigger battles to be fought.
Fuck , my inner Greg Diamond logic is coming out. I may need to go start a fight just to put me back on an even keel.
Kill it before it grows.
No, that last part is wrong. See AG Harris’s letter to Gov. Brown. It applies statewide.
Much as you may wish that justice (and Justices) worked otherwise, it generally walks in small steps, intentionally so.
I will have to see AG Harris’ letter. However, I thought that it had to be above a certain level of court for a proposition to be invalidated other than for the parties that were involved…in this case only 2 counties (LA and Alameda I think were the original counties). I believe that since the SCOTUS indicated that the it be remanded all the way back down to Walker’s court, which is a trial court, and not an appelate court, then Walker’s ruling should not be the law of the land, just for those two counties. See Sec 3.5 of the CA Constitution. Walker’s court is a trial court and not an appellate court. No appellate court ruling has been issued on whether Prop 8 is legal.
It could be possible that the AG is simply wrong…of course, I could be way off also. To me, it seems that the word of the people did not matter with regard to Prop 8. CA voters vote. Case is filed. Judge Walker rules. AG decides not to defend. NO APPELATE COURTE RULING IS ISSUED. NO SCOTUS RULING IS ISSUED (it was sent back down to Walkers ruling). One lower court judge (not saying in a bad way, but there are different levels of courts for reasons) and an AG has the ability to overrule the proposition vote…seems strange to me. Hence, I wish that the 9th circuit would have issued a ruling and/or the SCOTUS would have issued a ruling.
Where is Harris letter to Brown? A quick google did not bring it up for me…on vacation for a bit starting tomorrow, so…have a great week and Independence Day.
Found the letter (I had my filter to just give letters from the past 2 days since I thought it would be new)…dated June 3, 2013. Good analysis of the facts. Not sure I would agree with AG Harris but she certainly has a higher level of legal eagle training that this lowly citizen. Seems that she is making a few leaps and bounds to get there, which she obviously knew where she wanted to end up, otherwise she would have defended the Prop. Anyways, good quick reading of a legal brief regardless.
Krauthammer explains it much better than I –
But notice what that second rationale does. If the argument is just federalism, the Court is saying: Each state decides — and we, the Court, are out of here. But if the argument is equal protection, one question is left hanging. Why should equal protection apply only in states that recognize gay marriage? Why doesn’t it apply equally — indeed, even perhaps more forcefully — to gays who want to marry in states that refuse to marry them?
The argument isn’t just federalism and it isn’t just equal rights. It’s mostly an “illegitimacy of the government acting purely out of animus to stigmatize a group” argument, informed by the others. And they didn’t go further into the Full Faith and Credit issue because that puts two constitutional principles at odds and they’re not going to decide that until they have to do so.
“No you weren’t. You clearly quoted a comment on the Prop 8 case.”
If you noticed I said nearly the same thing 3 hrs earlier. I was thinking both – and the 5 liberal justices are pussies.
Have you seen the quote attributed to Betty White about calling people “pussies,” skally? It’s very funny, it’s dead on, and it was all over the place on social media earlier this year. If you haven’t seen it, it’s a shame.
Greg, is that the quote where she says vaginas are tougher than balls because they can take a beating? Or did she come up with another zinger?
found it…Quote Of The Day – Betty White
“I don’t care who anybody sleeps with. If a couple has been together all that time – and there are gay relationships that are more solid than some heterosexual ones – I think it’s fine if they want to get married. I don’t know how people can get so anti-something. Mind your own business, take care of your affairs, and don’t worry about other people so much.” – Betty White, in an interview with Parade Magazine.
I want to be just like her when I grow up
That’s the one, but there’s more to it than that. (And I think that it’s “pounding,” not “beating.” Much happier notion.)
Perhaps you are correct in the thinking of the 5 liberal justices – in which case they are acting unconstitutionaly.
SCOTUS struck down the Defense of Marriage Act on the grounds that those responsible for it were motivated by an “improper animus” against a “politically unpopular group” they wished to “disparage,” “demean,” and “humiliate” as “unworthy.” What stump-toothed knuckle-dragging inbred swamp-dwellers from which hellish Bible Belt redoubt would do such a thing? Well, fortunately, we have their names on the record: The DOMA legislators who were driven by their need to “harm” gay people include notorious homophobe Democrats Chuck Schumer, Pat Leahy, Harry Reid, Joe Biden, and the virulent anti-gay hater Bill Clinton.
Hey idiot, that was 1996. Many people have changed their views on the subject since then. You’re aware of that, right? You do know that DOMA was introduced by Bob Barr, right?
However, I WILL say that I think Clinton’s signing of DOMA, during an election year, was a pretty craven political act on his part. He even ran TV spots in the South bragging about it during the campaign. Oh, I suppose Greg is gonna come on here now and defend Clinton by pointing out that Congress could have overridden his veto.
Sometimes, ya gotta take a stand. Clinton failed to do it.
I will defend Clinton somewhat for signing DOMA, and those Democrats (among I think it was 84 “yes” votes) for supporting it, but not for the reason you suggest: the enactment of DOMA was a perfect example of “bending so you don’t break.”
If DOMA didn’t pass, there was a good chance that Congress would send a “Federal Marriage Amendment” to the states, defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman (and enshrining anti-gay animus in the Constitution itself.) The anti-gay frenzy was strong at the time; they probably could have managed it (and the President can’t veto a proposed Constitutional amendment.) If it had been send to the states in 1996, it is very likely that the required 38 states (3/4 of the total) would have ratified it.
Had a Federal Marriage Amendment passed, we would not have had the developments we’ve seen over the past decade and a half. The issue would have been settled — and, once passed, it would never have been repealed. Justice Kennedy could not have written Lawrence v. Texas as he did, because anti-gay animus would have been an acceptable constitutional principle. We would have been a permanently discriminatory nation.
I’m not happy that DOMA was passed, but I’m very happy that an FMA never passed. We’ll never know whether DOMA actually was necessary to fend off an FMA — but it’s plausible that it was. If so, 17 years of crumbling anti-gay discrimination was, unfortunately, a price worth paying to prevent an eternity of it. (I can get partisan about this if need be, but I’ll hold off for now.)
And you don’t think that DOMA was pushed because Republicans knew darn well they couldn’t pass an FMA? I do.
No, I don’t think so, although we’ll never know.
I think that they wanted DOMA first and then expected to work towards an FMA in the longer term — but if push came to shove I think that they could have forced a voted on an FMA shortly before the 1996 election and won. (DOMA and FMA would look pretty similar to the public in campaign ads.) That was the big hurdle; getting it past 38 states would have been comparatively easy.
Regardless, though, I’ll grant that Bill Clinton would have been willing to sign a bill selling the Everglades to Pat Robertson if he had thought that it would get him re-elected in 1996.
Is it possible for OJB liberals to discuss and debate ideas and issues presented without ad hominem attacks against the perceived character of the presenter?
“[In its holding, the Court] accuses the Congress that enacted this law and the President who signed it of something much worse than, for example, having acted in excess of enumerated federal powers—or even having drawn distinctions that prove to be irrational. Those legal errors may be made in good faith, errors though they are. But the majority says that the supporters of this Act acted with malice—with the “purpose” “to disparage and to injure” same-sex couples. It says that the motivation for DOMA was to “demean,” to “impose inequality,” to “impose . . . a stigma,” to deny people “equal dignity,” to brand gay people as “unworthy,” and to “humiliat[e]” their children.
The legislation is called the Defense of Marriage Act. But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority’s judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement.
To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to “disparage,” “injure,” “degrade,” “demean,” and “humiliate” our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homosexual. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race. . . .”
A. Scalia
“Is it possible for OJB liberals to discuss and debate ideas and issues presented without ad hominem attacks against the perceived character of the presenter?”
… says the man who just referred to five Supreme Court Justices repeatedly as “fucking pussies.” Sure, we can discuss things with critics temperately. Earn that privilege.
This from the man who recently, unprovoked, called me a “mental dung heap.”
Earn that privilege yourself Diamond.
“Unprovoked”? Sir, have you read your comments here?
Anyway, I think that “mental dung heap” was a nicely cleaned up version of the standard term.
Oh, and not all Marxists are communists, which is what provoked that solecism.
Unprovoked – yes – your unprovoked nasty comment to me was days before anything on this post. But I know that you are a sufferer of the Pedroza syndrome – you are never wrong.
You’re surprisingly thin-skinned for such a brawler.
Some might even call that being a “pussy.”
As for “never wrong”: funny — I just acknowledged an error in a comment responding to the ‘Ships. Write enough words and some of them will inevitably turn out to be wrong.
When do you acknowledge being wrong, skally?
Skally, the Bible thumpers could not come up with ONE sound reason why gays cannot have the same rights as straights…I repeat we do NOT live in a Theocracy.
Inge – It’s about the children.
Marriage is a relationship in which both parties are joined together by an element of their humanity. Their union is real and necessary. Consider the conjugal view of marriage, unity is achieved when the bodies of both spouses biologically coordinate toward a common goal. Their bodies must strive together to fulfill a common goal that neither individual can fulfill on their own. This common goal is procreation. Marriage completes this by uniting both spouses in the context of the sexual act. This union is reflected in the creation of children who bear the marks of both their mother and father. The nature of comprehensive marital union is such that it can only be achieved by one man and one woman. The bodies of two men or two women can never be deeply united in the way which marriage demands, for within the context of a same-sex relationship, their sexual organs necessarily fail to work together for a common end. The use of artificial reproductive technology is irrelevant, since this type of relationship lacks an intrinsic link to children.
The state regulates marriage because it has an interest in children. Marriage produces and cultivates the development of future citizens within a family unit held together by norms of fidelity, monogamy, exclusivity, and permanence. The flourishing of children is directly connected with the public good. The state incentivizes marriage both because it recognizes child-rearing to be a difficult task and because it wants to encourage men and women to form family units. The claim isn’t that you need to be married to have children, it is that marriage is oriented toward child well-being in a way that other sexual relationships are not.
Would you care to attribute “your writing”?
http://thomists.wordpress.com/tag/homosexuality
Are you saying that Skally has “gone medieval” on us.
You’ve gotta go back even further…iron age sounds about right.
I changed it up a bunch to make it easier to read – who cares where it came from – you all usually belittle the source rather than debate the content anyway.
“you all usually belittle the source rather than debate the content anyway.”
You mean like this?
“The Southern Poverty Law Center is a joke”
(that may be a slight paraphrase)
What should be blatantly obvious is that heterosexuals will still be getting married and having children, so why the manufactured crisis? Many couples will also have children without marriage–and that’s legal, you know, and has always been commonplace.
Also, as has been stated over and over, many heterosexuals will be getting married and won’t, or can’t, have children. Why not deny them the opportunity to marry, too? If you wish to be consistent, argue for procreative testing procedures in place before issuing a marriage license can be issued.
anon,
In that instance, I am pretty sure that I was responding to an SPLC citation or claim without content. Had there been content I would have responded to that. There is content in my posted comment above.
Well I can’t find the exact post because the search feature on this blog is kinda lame, but I’m pretty sure someone cited SPLC to make a point (ie, communicated content) and you dismissed the point being made by dismissing SPLC out of hand. That’s what you did. It’s the same thing.
If the search feature on this blog is lame, it’s partly because CERTAIN BLOGGERS I WON’T NAME don’t bother putting categories or tags onto their stories, leaving me with extra work I don’t always have time for. Do you remember what that story was about?
Not a big deal, Vern. I don’t believe SPLC was mentioned in the main story, so a tag wouldn’t have mattered anyway. The search feature doesn’t appear capable of finding a specific mention in a comment.
That would be me. It’s a perk.
One can search for text in both stories and comments, though, and it seems to be fine.
A majority of Californians had voted to ban gay marriage in the state, and now the state would no longer defend the law. Supporters tried to step into the void, defending the law themselves, but the U.S. Supreme Court held that they had not been injured in the kind of tangible, direct way that allows them to pursue a legal remedy – they had no standing – the long term implications of the ruling are disturbing. The state should not be able to nullify an initiative passed by millions of voters simply by choosing not to defend it in court.
Erwin Chemerinski –
I agree both with his conclusion that the state officials did nothing wrong here and that the state should make provisions for state-authorized independent defense of initiatives in the future. I don’t like the Supreme Court’s “standing” decision; I think that the Ninth Circuit decision was quite good and should have been allowed to stand.