Supreme Court strikes down DOMA, Prop 8


Great happiness today among supporters of same-sex marriage, and I am very happy for them. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was declared unconstitutional in that it defined marriage as being between one man and one women, thus depriving same-sex couples of equal federal benefits. Also struck down was California’s Proposition 8, which prohibited same-sex marriage. The court stopped short of declaring same-sax marriage legal in all 50 states; it only struck down the federal definition of marriage. Each state must now pass its own legislation recognizing same-sex marriage. To date, 12 have done so.

Opponents of same-sex marriage seem to think their interpretation of marriage, usually based on religious precepts, should trump these pesky legal interpretations. They seem to forget this is a nation of laws, with separation of church and state, and that even their own “religiously correct” marriages mean nothing without legal recognition. Frankly I’ll never understand their unwillingness to let other people enjoy the benefits of marriage, or their selfishness in saying “we can marry but you can’t.” The right of others to marry in no way affects their own.

To me it’s as simple as the abortion issue: If you don’t like it and don’t want one, don’t get one.

10 thoughts on “Supreme Court strikes down DOMA, Prop 8

  1. All partners should be treated as legal partners with same rights and benefits. This is a legal issue and affects many people and families. How can it be done in one state, and not be done in all? The Court said it’s a state issue. That looks unfair and uneven.
    We’ll see what happens next. Expect more cases to be in front of them on this issue in the future to clear it up.
    Texas is changing in the metro areas – but it’s a big state. LGBT population ranking in states: 1st. California, Florida, NY, then TX as 4th place. Top cities for LGBT: NYC =1st, Los Angeles, Chicago… with Houston as 6th and Dallas as 8th.
    My cousin and his partner have been together for over 30 years. They are family.
    “Marriage” is a religious deal? Fine – nobody is forced to belong to any church and forced to believe doctrine…we can go elsewhere. Not asking the churches to change their beliefs – nor will I ridicule them for their beliefs.
    We want them to be treated equally under the law. To have the same standing/legal benefits as any committed partners.Things are moving in that direction finally.

    1. I couldn’t agree more about the religious aspect. Nobody is saying church members can’t abide by their religion’s dictates; they just can’t force them on anyone else. I understand the states’ rights thing, but it seems like such an unnecessary delay and expense to require someone in each state to file a suit and then appeal it all the way to the Supreme Court for a ruling (but I’ll bet lawyers across the country are drawing up the papers right now). Still, it’s a huge step in the right direction, and an important precedent has been established for future decisions.

      1. Some people just don’t realize the difficulties because they haven’t had family members deal with it: higher income taxes, fighting hospital authorities for access into ER/intensive care, excessive inheritance taxes – as well as all the spousal benefits…if only people could put the emotion of religion aside and sit down and look at the real facts, maybe they could understand. Baby steps, but progress. The ruling is an important one – if it impacts “religion” it will be due to devotees own actions. Hope everyone just calms down and looks at reality.
        I hesitate to let the fed gov start taking charge of everything because we as individuals have so little control over it – local? I can get in my car and go get in front of elected officials – and we can mobilize quickly to stop or support legislation – once stuff gets to DC all is lost – big business and politicians who want to stay in office and on the payroll.
        It may take a bit going the Court route, but many states will see the handwriting on the wall…not saying TX will – as you know it’s always a battle for anything and everything…but that’s part of the character of the state….but we do know where the roads to Austin are, Dewhurst and Perry. Will of the people, dudes.

        1. You’d think states would see the handwriting on the wall and just go ahead and legalize same-sex marriage, but I’m not optimistic. I think a lot of them will have to be dragged kicking and screaming all the way to the Supreme Court. Colorado recently approved civil unions, so may be on the right track, but I think it will be a different story across the South. Hopefully some smart lawyer somewhere can construct and present a case in such a way that a favorable ruling will apply nationwide, as with Roe v Wade or Brown v Board of Education.

          I agree this has nothing to do with religion. It does not infringe on or affect anyone’s freedom of religion. That’s what makes the opposition so infuriating. Opponents seem to have only their religion as a basis for their opposition, and this decision does not in any way infringe on their right to practice their religion. As you say, its about equal rights regarding taxes, hospital visitation, medical decisions, and all other spousal benefits. People need to keep their religious beliefs out of other people’s lives.

  2. It’s about time.

    A “reason” is an explanation for why something is the way it is, with everyone involved taking accountability for their part in a situation.

    An “excuse” is an explanation for why something is the way it is, that always involves the blame being put on someone or something that isn’t involved in the conversation, and not able to share their side of the story. What’s the difference? The accountability.

    The arguments against same sex marriage are not reasonable. The arguments against same sex marriage are excuses.

    Heterosexism and monogamy have worn the mask of religion and most particularly, of Christianity, for far too long. The “love one another” commandments of Jesus, carry with them an expectation for followers to remain faithful to the values he established in his stance against the narrow minded and legalistic religious zealots of his day. When When people calling themselves true believers seek to exclude, marginalize, demonize and control a class of citizens in Jesus name, we can be sure that their mindset and behavior is not “Christ-like”. Marriages were not even conducted by the Christian church until the 12th century.

    There are many different kinds of families. There have always been many different kinds of families and government’s only role ought to be providing services to all their citizens equally without any discrimination whatsoever.

... and that's my two cents