A Dark Day for the Survival of Humanity

[xiinfaniin]

Supreme Court Bolsters Gay Marriage With Two Major Rulings

 

 

By ADAM LIPTAK

 

WASHINGTON — In a pair of major victories for the gay rights movement, the Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that married same-sex couples were entitled to federal benefits and, by declining to decide a case from California, effectively allowed same-sex marriages there.

 

The rulings leave in place laws banning same-sex marriage around the nation, and the court declined to say whether there was a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. But in clearing the way for same-sex marriage in California, the nation’s most populous state, the court effectively increased to 13 the number of states that allow such unions.

 

The decision on federal benefits will immediately extend many benefits to couples in the states where same-sex marriage is legal, and it will give the Obama administration the ability to broaden other benefits through executive actions.

 

The case concerning California’s ban on same-sex marriage, Proposition 8, was decided on technical grounds, with the majority saying that it was not properly before the court. Because officials in California had declined to appeal a trial court’s decision against them and because the proponents of Proposition 8 were not entitled to step into the state’s shoes to appeal the decision, the court said, it was powerless to issue a decision. That left in place a trial court victory for two same-sex couples who had sought to marry.

 

The decision on the federal law was 5 to 4, with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy writing the majority opinion, which the four liberal-leaning justices joined.

 

“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,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “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.”

 

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. was in the minority, as were Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

 

The ruling overturned the Defense of Marriage Act, which passed with bipartisan support and which President Bill Clinton signed.

 

The decision will raise a series of major questions for the Obama administration about how aggressively to overhaul references to marriage throughout the many volumes that lay out the laws of the United States.

 

The five-member majority in the California case was different from the one in the Defense of Marriage case, in a sign that the California case was less straightforward. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Scalia, Ginsberg, Breyer and Kagan.

 

“In the majority’s telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us,” Justice Scalia wrote in his dissent in the case on the federal law. “The truth is more complicated.”

 

Justice Scalia read from his dissent on the bench, a step justices take in a small share of cases, typically to show that they have especially strong views.

 

Justice Kennedy, in his opinion, wrote that the law was “unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment.”

 

If California becomes the 13th state to legalize same-sex marriage, about 30 percent of Americans will live in jurisdictions where it is legal. Until last year, when four states voted in favor of same-sex marriage at the ballot box, it had failed — or bans on it had succeeded — every time it had appeared on a statewide initiative.

 

Opponents of same-sex marriage have said that they remain hopeful that they can mount a political comeback, much as opponents of abortion used Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision, as a springboard to a more aggressive movement. Brian Brown, the head of the National Organization for Marriage, vowed Wednesday after the rulings to push for a federal constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

 

Gay rights advocates said they would continue pushing to legalize same-sex marriage in new states.

 

The case on the federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, United States v. Windsor, No. 12-307, considered the part of the law that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman for purposes of federal benefits. (A different part of the law, allowing states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages from other states, was not before the court.)

 

The case concerned two New York City women, Edith Windsor and Thea Clara Spyer, who married in 2007 in Canada. Ms. Spyer died in 2009, and Ms. Windsor inherited her property. The 1996 law did not allow the Internal Revenue Service to treat Ms. Windsor as a surviving spouse, and she faced a tax bill of about $360,000 that a spouse in an opposite-sex marriage would not have had to pay. Ms. Windsor sued, and last year the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York, struck down the 1996 law.

 

Until 2011, the Justice Department defended the law in court, as it typically does all acts of Congress. That year, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced that he and President Obama had concluded that the law was unconstitutional and unworthy of defense in court, but that the administration would continue to enforce the law. After the Justice Department stepped aside, House Republicans intervened to defend the law. Although the administration’s position prevailed in the lower courts, the Justice Department filed an appeal to the Supreme Court, saying the final decision should come from the highest court.

 

The case on Proposition 8, the 2008 California voter initiative that banned same-sex marriage there, was filed in 2009 by Theodore B. Olson and David Boies on behalf a two same-sex couples who sought to marry. The two lawyers argued on opposite sides in Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court case that settled the 2000 presidential election.

 

A judge in San Francisco struck down Proposition 8 in a broad ruling whose logic would apply to bans around the nation. California officials did not appeal the ruling.

 

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, ruled that proponents of Proposition 8 had standing to appeal the judgment against the state. The court then affirmed the trial judge’s decision but on a narrower ground, saying voters were not entitled to withdraw a constitutional right once it had been established by the State Supreme Court. That reasoning did not directly threaten bans in other states.

 

In their brief in the Supreme Court, supporters of Proposition 8 said that preserving the traditional definition of marriage would “further society’s vital interests in responsible procreation and child rearing.” Those interests would be undermined, they say, by “officially redefining marriage as a genderless institution.” They urged the Supreme Court to proceed with caution in changing the definition of marriage and to respect societal judgments made through the democratic process.

 

Supporters of same-sex marriage responded that allowing gay and lesbian couples to wed would not make it any more likely that straight couples would act irresponsibly. They added that courts must protect the fundamental rights of disfavored minorities.

 

The Obama administration urged the Supreme Court to strike down Proposition 8, focusing on a ground that it said would apply to California and seven other states. It violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause, the administration’s brief said, to confer all the benefits and burdens of marriage on gay and lesbian couples through robust civil union or domestic partnership laws but withhold the label “marriage.”

[Alpha Blondy]

what measures has Ahmed 'Kibiki' Madoobe taken to contest these major rulings?

 

please advise.

 

Alz.

[xiinfaniin]

^^That is the problem of consuming large amount of qad ---you lose decorum and become inconsiderate

 

This is General section, not politics section

[Alpha Blondy]

xiinfaniin;964493 wrote:

^^That is the problem of consuming large amount of qad ---you lose decorum and become inconsiderate

 

This is General section, not politics section

waxaad noqotahay hees bila musiga ah...............oo cod kiniyati ah ku heesayo, ma istidhi?

[GaraadMon]

A bit melodramatic, don't you think? Or do you fear that there is no longer any barrier to you becoming a turd-burglar?

[xiinfaniin]

It is not the personal freedom and individual choices we object (that is a matter of choice). Rather the institutionalization of a marriage between two men is what I find worrying.

[uchi]

It was always inevitable. Honestly with less children i guess the white race will be extinct, eventually.

 

Let them marry each other i say, reap what you sow.

[warsamaale]

As usual with african men, the thought of two men marrying petrifies them for some reason, but not two women . chill niyow, gaalaada wadonkooda u daa. i don't care neither should you.

[Nin-Yaaban]

Waa wax laga naxo. Ilmaha yar yar oo soo koraya yaa larabaa in laga dhaa dhacsho ineey waxaan caadi tahay.

[Naxar Nugaaleed]

lol that is over reacting a little. If like you, certain status and the federal government don't object to their rights, there is no need for discriminatory laws in the books. The law should treat everyone equal. my two cents

[xiinfaniin]

two women maxay isku samaynayaan? the men do damage to each other and to the wider society

 

If the trend continues , soon men will be marrying their daughters and moms

[Naxar Nugaaleed]

So you do object their rights lol

[warsamaale]

and soon humans will marry their pets too, its a slippery slope i tell you.

[xiinfaniin]

Naxar Nugaaleed;964516 wrote:

So you do object their rights lol

Rights to marry between two men ?, hell yes. Just like I would object the claim of right to marry a mother or daughter...

[Naxar Nugaaleed]

I think standing where you are, today's ruling is trivial xiin. All it means is that in states that have already recognized same sex marriage, the federal government will treat them the same: The can jointly file taxes, pay lower taxes on inheritances, claim the SSI benefits. Mind, the court that decided this is conservative majority. The same court that revoked the voting rights act a few days ago.