![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
in an unusual bit of GOOD news
Jun. 26th, 2013 12:49 pmIn case you haven't heard already, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (which prohibited the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in states where they're legal) and allowed lower court rulings that California's Proposition 8 (the one that rescinded the right to same-sex marriage) is unconstitional to stand.
The best news, I think, is the grounds on which the rulings were made. Now, let me emphasize first how very much I am not a lawyer or a scholar of constitutional law. However, as I understand the situation, the Supreme Court could have ruled on very narrow technical grounds about DOMA, saying something to the effect that all marriages recognized by states have to be recognized federally. That wouldn't have set any kind of wider precedent. Instead, they went far beyond that, ruling on equal protection grounds. As the decision, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, puts it:
The Prop 8 decision is similarly heartening. The court ruled that the Prop 8 supporters had no legal standing--that is, they weren't injured by the legalization of same-sex marriage and therefore they had no legal grounds for trying to change the law. As the Guardian points out in this article, my source for most of this post, the ruling legally invalidates any claim, by any opponents of equal marriage anywhere in the U.S., that allowing same-sex couples to marry will hurt straight married couples or anyone else.
Such good news! I wish I hadn't had to listen to the homophobic reaction of one of my co-workers this morning (along the lines of "there are more important things and this is all a waste of time and money," and "gay people have more rights than straight people already"--the only reason I didn't rip him a new one is because he wasn't talking to me, I just overheard it all), but hey, at least the law is no longer on his side!
ETA: Here is an article by Aaron Zelinsky, a law professor at the University of Maryland, excerpting what he considers the ten most important bits of the ruling and the dissents by Scalia and Roberts.
The best news, I think, is the grounds on which the rulings were made. Now, let me emphasize first how very much I am not a lawyer or a scholar of constitutional law. However, as I understand the situation, the Supreme Court could have ruled on very narrow technical grounds about DOMA, saying something to the effect that all marriages recognized by states have to be recognized federally. That wouldn't have set any kind of wider precedent. Instead, they went far beyond that, ruling on equal protection grounds. As the decision, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, puts it:
The federal statute [DOMA] is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to 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 federal statute is in violation of the fifth amendment.This looks to me like a breakthrough, since the Supreme Court is clearly implying that not allowing same-sex marriage is in itself discriminatory and violates the U.S. Constitution. In other words, I think this potentially the basis for the legalization of same-sex marriage across the U.S.
The Prop 8 decision is similarly heartening. The court ruled that the Prop 8 supporters had no legal standing--that is, they weren't injured by the legalization of same-sex marriage and therefore they had no legal grounds for trying to change the law. As the Guardian points out in this article, my source for most of this post, the ruling legally invalidates any claim, by any opponents of equal marriage anywhere in the U.S., that allowing same-sex couples to marry will hurt straight married couples or anyone else.
Such good news! I wish I hadn't had to listen to the homophobic reaction of one of my co-workers this morning (along the lines of "there are more important things and this is all a waste of time and money," and "gay people have more rights than straight people already"--the only reason I didn't rip him a new one is because he wasn't talking to me, I just overheard it all), but hey, at least the law is no longer on his side!
ETA: Here is an article by Aaron Zelinsky, a law professor at the University of Maryland, excerpting what he considers the ten most important bits of the ruling and the dissents by Scalia and Roberts.
