×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Supreme Court Overturns Defense of Marriage Act

timothy posted about 10 months ago | from the totally-bringing-on-the-apocalypse dept.

United States 1073

12 U.S. states have adopted same-sex marriage over the past decade, and many other states have adopted legislation specifically intended to prevent same-sex marriages from being performed or recognized within their borders. The landscape has just changed on that front, though: the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which barred federal recognition of same-sex marriages, has been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court; here's the ruling itself. From the NBC News version of the story: "The decision was 5-4, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy. “'DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others,' the ruling said. 'The federal statute 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.'" One major area this affects is tax law; that's one of the salient points in U.S. v. Windsor, the case that drove the court's conclusion. There's more on the story at many major news outlets, and at law-centric sources like SCOTUSblog. The Boston Globe is also live blogging various reactions.

Update: 06/26 16:58 GMT by T : In a separate decision, the court disappointed supporters of California's Proposition 8, a law passed by voter initiative, under which "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The court ruled that the private parties which had taken up the Prop 8 banner did not have standing to do so; as the story says, "The 5-4 decision avoids, for now, a sweeping conclusion on whether same-sex marriage is a constitutional "equal protection" right that would apply to all states."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

1073 comments

Good ... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44112441)

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

You should no more be able to deny rights to people because of their sexuality than you should be able to deny the right of blacks to vote and hold property.

That Scalia dissented means he's not looking at the right parts of the Constitution but is just being selective.

Believing one group should be able to dictate the rights of another group makes you no better than the Taliban.

Re:Good ... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44112685)

You do realize you are talking about him being selective in looking at the Constitution but then quote the Declaration of Independence? The Declaration has no bearing on Laws.

Re:Good ... (4, Insightful)

ganjadude (952775) | about 10 months ago | (#44112701)

I believe there is more to it than that.

I for one want the government out of marriage. Let the churches deal with "marriage"

Now having said that. If 2 gay people want to live together and have the same rights that current married couples get, I dont see why that should not be allowed. I also think that if 2 people simply live together they should get the same rights, "love" should never be the deciding factor when it comes to giving tax breaks to people or even worse tax money to people.

Re:Good ... (0, Troll)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 10 months ago | (#44112767)

Marriage gives you certain benefits - taxes, insurance rates, access rights, etc - that no other 'grouping' does.

You're never going to get government out of all of the things that marriage gives benefits to.

Rights are given by the government. If marriage gives you extra rights, then the government says what those are.

Re:Good ... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44112913)

Rights are given by the government. If marriage gives you extra rights, then the government says what those are.

Rights are given by the government? You need to take a civics class.

Re:Good ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44112719)

Believing one group should be able to dictate the rights of another group makes you no better than the Taliban.

so the people who seek to deny or limit my right to keep and bare arms are no better than the Taliban? Good to know!

Re:Good ... (1)

parkinglot777 (2563877) | about 10 months ago | (#44112881)

deny or limit my right to keep and bare arms

Your meaning is different from "forbidden" in this topic. "Forbidden" in this case means "all". Your "deny or limit" does not mean "all" of any types of fire arms (in law).

Re:Good ... (1)

mrclisdue (1321513) | about 10 months ago | (#44112917)

...so the people who seek to deny or limit my right to keep and bare arms are no better than the Taliban? Good to know!

I have plenty of t-shirts, plus many short-sleeved dress shirts, and I've never felt my rights to wear them have been limited. Granted, both Homer Simpson and Sipowitz have given the dress shirts their blessings, so I *know* I'm in good company, hence the Taliban can go fuck themselves, remaining single, so this decision doesn't affect them....

cheers,

Re:Good ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44112731)

Black is in my family and to compare the two is an insult, you racist pig. What does this news news have to do with Slash Dolt anyway? I could care less but I'm sick of the Gay everything in the US, give it a rest.

Its sad really, (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44112779)

I'm glad this was overturned, but had the NSA leak not happened we'd be reading about the Supreme court defending DOMA right now. Make no mistake, this happened as a "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" distraction from the issues with the ongoing monitoring of all US citizens.

Re:Good ... (2)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 10 months ago | (#44112839)

That Scalia dissented means he's not looking at the right parts of the Constitution but is just being selective.

I can't think of the last time I've heard of a Justice saying that he personally detests the ruling but 'this is what the law says'. They all seem to join or dissent with the ruling that they prefer and back themselves into an argument to support it, which is antithetical to the job description. Somebody please prove me wrong on that.

It says more about the wisdom of having nine final arbiters of truth than anything.

Re:Good ... (5, Informative)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 10 months ago | (#44112857)

Not to mention the case that brought it before the court is the perfect example of WHY we don't want the fed deciding who is and isn't allowed and the fact that the right wing has a fit, even though the case involved something they like to crow about? Just makes 'em hypocrites in my book.

For those that didn't see the details person was married for years, partner dies, fed takes nearly $400k away from the partner for taxes...that wouldn't have been levied if the partner had a penis. I'm sorry but that is fucked up, either the law is equal or its a sham and deciding to take a pile of money from a widow based on the sex of the corpse would be just as fucked up if they took it based on the skin color or religion of the corpse, that isn't right any way you slice it.

What now? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44112453)

Say you have a same-sex marriage in a state that recognizes it or a country that recognizes it. Now you move to Alabama. Are you unmarried? And can Alabama still discriminate against your marriage? Or does this just apply to the federal government?

Re:What now? (2)

gstoddart (321705) | about 10 months ago | (#44112477)

Or does this just apply to the federal government?

I believe this particular ruling only covers DOMA ... they are supposed to release other decisions which might weigh in on individual state bans.

Re:What now? (1)

Capt James McCarthy (860294) | about 10 months ago | (#44112517)

Say you have a same-sex marriage in a state that recognizes it or a country that recognizes it. Now you move to Alabama. Are you unmarried? And can Alabama still discriminate against your marriage? Or does this just apply to the federal government?

This is where States rights come in and the Federal governments rights stop. Well, it used to be that way. Because of Federal dollars luring the States to follow what the Federal govt wants done, States rights are becoming fewer and fewer.

Re:What now? (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 10 months ago | (#44112635)

So states have the right to deprive people of rights?

Can Alabama decide to have slaves again? Can they stop inter racial marriage?

Re:What now? (3, Insightful)

LocalH (28506) | about 10 months ago | (#44112855)

You know, "states' rights" doesn't equal "racism" no matter how hard you try. The Federal government should be ensuring that people's rights aren't violated, but there's plenty of room for states to have their own rights as per the Constitution, without cutting off our nose to spite our face. That's where DOMA came into play - it didn't seek to invalidate the rights of states to respect same-sex marriage, it sought to allow other states to invalidate those rights. This has been struck down, and it's a good thing. But, to change the subject, let's talk about cannabis legalization. Two states have outright legalized it even for recreational use, and those laws should be upheld as they infringe on nobody's rights. That's the type of thing that is actually within the purview of "states' rights" without being discriminatory or prejudicial.

To some people, there are only two options they see - either the Federal government micro-manages the states, or the states have full autonomy regardless of who is being wronged. This speaks more to an inability of many people to see an issue in anything other than black and white, and in fact is the major reason that the US is so divided on social issues nowadays.

Re:What now? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 10 months ago | (#44112897)

So states have the right to deprive people of rights?

Can Alabama decide to have slaves again? Can they stop inter racial marriage?

The 14th amendment would(largely because it was designed to keep southerners from being dickheads again) make that more difficult.

Re:What now? (2)

Rich0 (548339) | about 10 months ago | (#44112575)

Say you have a same-sex marriage in a state that recognizes it or a country that recognizes it. Now you move to Alabama. Are you unmarried? And can Alabama still discriminate against your marriage? Or does this just apply to the federal government?

Seems like the Full Faith and Credit clause should apply:
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Re:What now? (5, Insightful)

operagost (62405) | about 10 months ago | (#44112687)

Ideally, that's what would happen. But we all know that the states selectively decide this: drivers' licenses are accepted, but firearm permits usually are not. This is especially amusing when you consider that politicians constantly remind us that driving is a privilege, while it's understood by most that keeping and bearing arms is a right (though what this means is subject to whim^H^H^H^H interpretation).

Re:What now? (3, Insightful)

Jarmihi (2589777) | about 10 months ago | (#44112581)

You are correct. Civil marriage is licensed by the state, and if the state you're in will not recognize a license from another state, you are not entitled to the benefits in that state.

Re:What now? (2)

dainbug (678555) | about 10 months ago | (#44112697)

But wouldn't the commerce clause come into play where currency, no tariffs and licenses carry across state borders?

Re:What now? (3, Interesting)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 10 months ago | (#44112757)

If they recognize other marriages from that state, they should not be able to pick and choose.

Re:What now? (4, Funny)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 10 months ago | (#44112763)

I imagine driver licenses work much the same. If New Jersey decides everybody gets a license when they turn 18 even if they haven't taken any written or practical test, then other states can choose not to accept NJ driving licenses as valid. Thus if you got caught with a NJ license in another state, they could charge you as driving without a license.

**NOTE: As far as I know, New Jersey does not just give everyone a license at 18. They have to find it in a Crackerjack box first.

Re:What now? (1)

Cajun Hell (725246) | about 10 months ago | (#44112721)

Let's say you get married at the age of 15 in a state that allows it, and then move to a state where you're required to be 18 in order to get married. What happens?

Look that one up and you should have the answer to your own question, and I bet it'll be some hundred-year-old decision.

Re:What now? (4, Informative)

Antipater (2053064) | about 10 months ago | (#44112899)

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

That's Section 2 of DOMA, which was not ruled on. Only Section 3 of DOMA was ruled unconstitutional. The above section, which decrees that one state does not have to uphold a same-sex marriage conducted in another state, is still law.

So as it is (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44112469)

I can now marry my pet gold fish, multiple people or a person of any age?

Re:So as it is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44112553)

I'll marry your face to my fist if you don't stop your trolling. I'm allowed since I'm an honest-to-Bob preacher.

Re:So as it is (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 10 months ago | (#44112925)

I'm afraid that your pet goldfish has zero (0) ring slots. Not only does this totally nerf his ability to use enchanted items, it makes marrying him more difficult.

return (1)

jythie (914043) | about 10 months ago | (#44112487)

So basicly we are were we were before the 'OMG Hawaii might let gay people get married!' moral panic.... states set their own marriage rules, the federal government respects state laws, and states have to respect each other's laws (was that last part covered by this decision? I am unsure on that point).

Sounds good.

Re:return (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44112639)

and states have to respect each other's laws

Only to a point... And where the laws of both states match... There was a case in Nebraska a little while back where a couple was legally married in Kansas, but lived in Nebraska... Nebraska charged the husband with statutory rape as while the couple could get married under Kansas law, they could not under Nebraska law.

Re:return (1)

cdrudge (68377) | about 10 months ago | (#44112889)

the federal government respects state laws, and states have to respect each other's laws (was that last part covered by this decision?

No. DOMA had 2 main parts. Part II said that states didn't have to honor other state's marriages if they didn't want to. Part III is what said that 'marriage' means legal union between one man and one woman and spouse only meant person of the opposite sex that is a husband or wife. Part III was what was struck down today.

States are still free to say that marriage is between one man and one woman. But if they state says that a same sex marriage is a legal union, the federal government has to accept it.

Funny results reporting (4, Interesting)

smooth wombat (796938) | about 10 months ago | (#44112493)

Just for the sake of shits and giggles, I took screenshots of the three big cable networks (CNN, Fox and MSNBC) about half an hour ago when the first notice came out. I wanted to see how each would report on the announcement.

As predicted, CNN and NBC had nice big, red banners claiming the Supreme Court had a ruling and results would be forthcoming.

Fox, on the other hand, had no notice except for a small box on the right side of their web site which, if you didn't know what to look for, you would have missed.

Now, half an hour later, the Fox headline rules the decision is a victory for gay marriage, NOT that the law was ruled unconstitutional.

So the next time someone whines about the liberal bias in the media, kindly remind them of the twisting of facts by the conservative media.

NOTE: I have a moderate leaning though I do have positions which some might consider on the far side of both political spectrums so this isn't about one or the other. Just the hypocrisy of those who claim bias.

Re:Funny results reporting (4, Insightful)

jaymz666 (34050) | about 10 months ago | (#44112509)

At this point, anyone who doubts that Fox News is putting extremely heavy spin and lies into their "news" is just not paying attention. It's an entertainment network, not a news network.

Re:Funny results reporting (3, Insightful)

WilyCoder (736280) | about 10 months ago | (#44112533)

Sure, if you find propaganda to be entertaining.

Re:Funny results reporting (3, Funny)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 10 months ago | (#44112789)

I do.

I'm going to have a lot of fun over the next week reading a lot of biased reports, laughing at the ridiculous hyperbole and mocking the ignorance behind it.

Re:Funny results reporting (1)

jaymz666 (34050) | about 10 months ago | (#44112919)

That's kind of their point, to keep the masses that watch them entertained and misinformed. They seem to succeed at it.

Re:Funny results reporting (0, Troll)

csumpi (2258986) | about 10 months ago | (#44112921)

So what you are saying is Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews leave their political views out of their unbiased shows? Or their bias is just more preferable to you?

Re:Funny results reporting (4, Insightful)

csumpi (2258986) | about 10 months ago | (#44112663)

I don't get it. How is saying that this was a victory for gay marriage some sort of twisting the news? It _is_ a victory for gay marriage. That's what the whole thing was about. In fact it sounds like they gave you more info, because what does "DOMA ruled unconstitutional" mean to most people?

A twist would've been FOX saying that the ruling hurts traditional family values. Or that we are all going to die.

Re:Funny results reporting (2)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about 10 months ago | (#44112679)

To be fair, CNN says nothing about the ruling in regards to constitutionality either, just their breaking news banner and the artilce title which both state "victory for gay marriage". So it's not just Fox News.

Re:Funny results reporting (1)

cdrudge (68377) | about 10 months ago | (#44112733)

And lately, CNN has used their banner to "break" news about just about everything.

"Breaking news: Random person goes to the bathroom. Details soon."

Re:Funny results reporting (2)

operagost (62405) | about 10 months ago | (#44112795)

Couldn't you just as easily show this as bias toward the "left" by MSNBC and CNN? Especially since MSNBC's headline also contains "Historic win for gay marriage" and doesn't refer to the Constitution at all?

By the way, I just checked FoxNews.com and what you say is no longer correct. The headline is up there. So what you're claiming is that if a website doesn't respond super-quickly and in the manner that you demand, they're biased?

Your logic needs a little work.

Re:Funny results reporting (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 10 months ago | (#44112901)

So upholding civil rights is a left leaning thing?

You really want to make that argument?

Re:Funny results reporting (1)

smooth wombat (796938) | about 10 months ago | (#44112911)

I was only pointing out what the 3 sites initially had to say about the impending news on the verdict AND how they presented it. Two presented big and bold headlines, "Impending Supreme Court decision on DOMA", while the third had this little, bitty blurb off to the side in small print.

Now that time has passed, of course the sites will say something differently.

Re:Funny results reporting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44112799)

They only survive because people see it. Educate the people first!

Re:Funny results reporting (2)

s.petry (762400) | about 10 months ago | (#44112807)

I hate to break the news to you (intentional pun?) but it's not just Fox twisting facts. Every major news agency, referred to as MSM (Main Stream Media) does the exact same thing. This includes ABC, CNN, NBC and FOX in all forms (I.E. MSNBC). The supreme court ruling that news is entertainment impacted all MSM stations, and entrenched their purpose as propaganda instead of public service journalists.

Thankfully, there are still real journalists at work. You need to seek them out and read their articles, but they are there. The difference between MSM's now is really that some may give you just enough information to make them look unbiased. The brainwashing tactics don't change though, nor does the propaganda messages they pound the public with.

Amazing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44112499)

They actually shot down a federal law!! What about the other million?

So now that they can't use it as a weapon anymore (4, Insightful)

Qzukk (229616) | about 10 months ago | (#44112503)

Will the republicans finally pull the jesus buttplug out of their ass and start being conservatives and start getting rid of all the inheritance bullshit they've built up over the years to protect their vision of what a family is supposed to be?

Re:So now that they can't use it as a weapon anymo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44112671)

Will the republicans finally pull the jesus buttplug out of their ass and start being conservatives and start getting rid of all the inheritance bullshit they've built up over the years to protect their vision of what a family is supposed to be?

You're wrong. True REPUBLICANS don't exist anymore in the US of A. They disappeared ages ago.
What we have now are republitards, ignorant, clueless idiots that pander to other idiots. They have no political, economical or social culture.

Re:So now that they can't use it as a weapon anymo (2)

NonUniqueNickname (1459477) | about 10 months ago | (#44112863)

Congratulations!
JESUSBUTTPLUG.COM
is available. Snap it up before someone else does.

Just putting it out there...

NOT News For Nerds (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44112505)

Stop it now, this is just not news for nerds and does not belong on this site.

Re:NOT News For Nerds (2)

jaymz666 (34050) | about 10 months ago | (#44112527)

It IS stuff that matters!

Re:NOT News For Nerds (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44112673)

Yes, nerds are usually gay

Re:NOT News For Nerds (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44112737)

The SCOTUS decision overturning Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act yesterday is also stuff that matters, but slashdot didn't post a front page story on it. As well as Fisher, or any other decision.
Why is that? This is just an agenda pushed by timothy.

You're right (4, Funny)

arcite (661011) | about 10 months ago | (#44112633)

Most readers of Slashdot are introverted, basement dwelling, pale skinned, nocturnal beasts - the prospect of a spouse who makes them get a haircut, put out the trash, and stop dressing like a slob, is probably the most horrible thing imaginable! Run away!

Sorry (-1, Troll)

kiriath (2670145) | about 10 months ago | (#44112525)

But I do not feel like this is relevant to the technical community. I'm not unhappy about the decision - but there are 'news' sites for 'just news' this is supposed to be 'news for nerds'... Not feeling the relevance.

Re:Sorry (1)

sribe (304414) | about 10 months ago | (#44112659)

this is supposed to be 'news for nerds'

This site is not, nor has it ever been, only news for nerds. To claim otherwise is bullshit, pure and simple.

Re:Sorry (2)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about 10 months ago | (#44112707)

Nerds can't have an interest in their domestic politics? This is, after all, an American oriented site.

"Right" and "Left" change places yet again (4, Interesting)

Cajun Hell (725246) | about 10 months ago | (#44112547)

The "Left" once again upholds limited central government and states' rights. The "Right" once again argues (unsuccessfully) for central planning taking a larger role for the "common good" at the expense of individual liberty and states' rights to govern and set their own policies.

Three cheers for the Left (i.e. conservatives) winning again!

Re:"Right" and "Left" change places yet again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44112735)

I was unaware that equal rights were a left-right (liberal-conservative) issue. Perhaps you'll enlighten me a bit on your views?

Re:"Right" and "Left" change places yet again (1)

operagost (62405) | about 10 months ago | (#44112835)

This is only confusing for people who still believe "liberal" and "conservative" mean what FDR called them, and that the more important political axis concerns social issues rather than the power of the state.

Re:"Right" and "Left" change places yet again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44112873)

The "Left" once again upholds limited central government and states' rights. The "Right" once again argues (unsuccessfully) for central planning taking a larger role for the "common good" at the expense of individual liberty and states' rights to govern and set their own policies.

Three cheers for the Left (i.e. conservatives) winning again!

I think your definition of "conservatives" predates Richard M. Nixon. While modern conservatives have paid petty lip service to what you speak of, they by and large have been as bad or worse than liberals in the "central planning for the common good" doctrine.

but dont worry (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44112551)

WE SPY ON EVERYONE EQUALLY

Good! The US should stay out of it. (5, Informative)

jonnythan (79727) | about 10 months ago | (#44112555)

This is great. The majority opinion repeatedly makes the point that DOMA stepped on states' toes specifically to HARM a certain group, instead of help it, and that was unconstitutional. The US shouldn't be in the business of denying rights to citizens that states want them to have.

"DOMA’s avowed purpose and practical effect are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the states."

"When the State used its historic and essential authority to define the marital relation in this way, its role and its power in making the decision enhanced the recognition, dignity, and protection of the class in their own community. DOMA, because of its reach and extent, departs from this history and tradition of reliance on state law to define marriage"

"DOMA seeks to injure the very class New York seeks to protect. By doing so it violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government."

Anyway, this is great. People think that preventing gay marriage is somehow taking a stand against homosexuality or something. News flash: gay couples live as married couples whether you like it or not. The only thing banning the marriage certificate does is punish them for being gay, which is ridiculous beyond belief.

Distracts from unlimited surveillance (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44112565)

Nothing distracts the sheep from the unlimited surveillance than homosexuality and abortions.

HEY LOOK GAY SQUIRREL!

Gay Weather (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44112605)

Get ready for more hurricanes as a result of this decision

Shocking, antidisestablishmentarianism . (-1, Flamebait)

F34nor (321515) | about 10 months ago | (#44112617)

Marriage is a religious activity, therefore how can the state discriminate on its basis? If so then the benefits should not be limited to one class. I do have serious questions about polyandry and polygamy but I can see limited the benefits to one "spouse" Anyway go fuck yourselves religious conservatives you are the American Taliban and deserve the same.

Re:Shocking, antidisestablishmentarianism . (1)

Jarmihi (2589777) | about 10 months ago | (#44112655)

Marriage can be either or both a religious activity or a civil one. There are civil benefits for being married. Put simply, if marriage was not a civil thing, there would be no regulation at all on it.

Re:Shocking, antidisestablishmentarianism . (3, Insightful)

jaymz666 (34050) | about 10 months ago | (#44112661)

A wedding may be a religious ceremony. Weddings happen without religion and happened long before religion.
Marriages too.

Re:Shocking, antidisestablishmentarianism . (1)

geoffrobinson (109879) | about 10 months ago | (#44112677)

This "deserve" word you are using. What are you basing that on? Anything beyond your own personal preferences?

Re:Shocking, antidisestablishmentarianism . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44112781)

Marriage is a religious activity, therefore how can the state discriminate on its basis? If so then the benefits should not be limited to one class. I do have serious questions about polyandry and polygamy but I can see limited the benefits to one "spouse" Anyway go fuck yourselves religious conservatives you are the American Taliban and deserve the same.

What part of "1100+" federal benefits related to marriage do you understand to be "religious"?

Re:Shocking, antidisestablishmentarianism . (2)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 10 months ago | (#44112883)

You ever been to a wedding? That marriage certificate thing they have to sign, and the guy who says "By the power vested in me by the state of..."? That's the civil aspect of it. It just happens to be something where, traditionally, we combine civil and religious all in one big party. Plenty of people get married with zero religion involve. And while it's possible to have a purely religious marriage, it holds no civil rights so you never see it done because it's not recognized outside of the church.

Justice Kennedy's statement (1)

operagost (62405) | about 10 months ago | (#44112619)

The first half of Kennedy's statement is wholly pointless; it's not the federal government's job to decide what is or isn't disrespectful to the people. That attitude is what gets us into problems like this in the first place. The second half is the part that matters: the federal government has no business arbitrarily telling States what laws they may enact unless said laws remove the rights of the people: life, liberty, and property.

It's about destroying the family (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44112637)

Well, I think DOMA is unconstitutional because it is a states-right issue.

Kind of flies in the face of Obama care right? What happened to the states-rights issue there?

Either way - it is not about the right of gay people to marry, it is about destroying the family, teaching kindergartners to masturbate to "find out" if they are gay.

See, it is not a black and white issue

Good (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44112649)

Nobody's free until everybody's free.

Stuff that matters. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44112651)

This really isn't news for nerds......

Re:Stuff that matters. (2)

fyngyrz (762201) | about 10 months ago | (#44112813)

It's news for everybody, including nerds. I'm straight, and I was pleased to see it here. You are free to not read any story that you're not interested in. For you to advocate kicking stories off smacks of interest -- not disinterest. Perhaps a little examination of your own motives is in order.

Marriage is none of the government's business (4, Insightful)

schwit1 (797399) | about 10 months ago | (#44112667)

If 2 or 3 or 10 consenting adults wish to share their lives, so be it. Beyond the emotional component of marriage, which the government can add no value, the rest should fall under contract law.

Re: Marriage is none of the government's business (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44112877)

I too believe that when my parter is sick in hospital I should run a copy of our contract past their legal department to make sure it fits their standards and permits me access to them.

Christ, the obsession some people have with making everything into a subset of contract/property law is disturbing.

Marriage penalty... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44112675)

The marriage penalty should apply equally to all. Actually, it should be abolished. Two higher earning people getting married pay *more* tax than the same two people committing to one another without the government's blessing.

Gays have had the option of legal marriage (and its benefits) without being subject to the marriage penalty. Straight people could have a ceremony but would need to "forget" about the marriage license in order to avoid paying the marriage penalty.

I don't begrudge gays this (limited and possibly short-lived benefit) -- they've had enough to deal with in regard to marriage rights.

California (1)

Nukenbar (215420) | about 10 months ago | (#44112703)

Still crazy that California of all places was the state to bad same sex marriages.

As to the DOMA, it was still a cop-out by the Obama administration to refuse to defend the law and require the court to overturn it. The AG's office should defend the laws on the books and allow Congress and the courts to decide on the laws.

Re:California (1)

paenguin (311404) | about 10 months ago | (#44112885)

The AG's office should defend the laws on the books and allow Congress and the courts to decide on the laws.

Only if you still think it's a Federal government for the people. I think the track record shows that is no longer the case and hasn't been for a while.

The Problem here is not marriage (5, Insightful)

josephtd (817237) | about 10 months ago | (#44112705)

Again we see that the Courts are saying that citizen groups do not have standing to support laws placed on the books by their elected officials. Much as Obama refused to defend DOMA, the CA AG and Governor decided not to defend a duly passed statue. This is beyond the pale. IF you don't like a law, get it changed through the process outlined in the Federal and most State Constitutions. This imperial head of state nonsense must end. For the record, I have no objection to the outcome, I just feel there is too much wrong with the way these outcomes are coming about these days. You have no moral standing to complain about FISA, the NSA or the Patriot Act if you defend the way the executive branch in CA and the US acted and the manner SCOTUS came to this ruling.

Only section 3: Section 2 still stands. (5, Interesting)

Luciano Moretti (2887109) | about 10 months ago | (#44112809)

Section 2 still stands, allowing states to not recognize same-sex marriages from other states. IMO a state with Same-sex marriage should pass a law where they don't recognize marriages from states that define marriage differently (AKA as "Between a man and a woman") to force the issue. Worst case you get a lot of new marriage license income as couples have to get remarried for tax/legal reasons.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...