<p>What a wonderful day</p>
<p>Indeed. I agree as a straight ally.</p>
<p>I woke up after watching Texas until 3 AM to my phone going crazy with the news. </p>
<p>I am beyond thrilled. 30% of people now live in states with marriage equality. We are getting SO CLOSE to marriage equality for all. </p>
<p>I <em>never</em> expected them to rule favorably on both issues. It gives me hope that our Michigan constitutional ban can be overturned SOON.</p>
<p>A very wonderful day. I suspect the unusual combo of justices in the CA ruling was because Sotomayor was holding out for a more liberal version, and Thomas etc. wanted something more conservative.</p>
<p>Wonderful news and very proud of the Canadian connection! Bravo to the SCC.</p>
<p>And the Prop 8 ruling as well. Hurrah!!</p>
<p>What a relief! After the terrible, destructive voting rights act decision, I had been very pessimistic on this one. This time, they got it right, IMO.</p>
<p>Celebrating and planning on dancing at my daughter’s wedding!!!</p>
<p>I always read the actual opinions but I read the dissent(s) first because I want to read the majority without the bias inherent in knowing this is the finding. I want to see the case through the eyes of the dissenters.</p>
<p>The dissents fall in 2 categories - there are 3 dissents, with Thomas joining parts of 2, etc. The first is standing to sue. These arguments are common division points and, to be blunt, when the majority wants to find standing to sue they do. Scalia, in particular, is perfectly inclined to find standing in cases where he is in the majority. I rarely care much about standing arguments unless that is actually the heart of the decision. That is not the issue with DOMA. Standing is either a way of saying you are in the majority or not.</p>
<p>The other part of the dissents is an essentially religious only relatively cloaked cri de coeur that motives of religious condemnation of morality are not hateful. Scalia runs on for pages but only after introducing his point with the actual framing argument he’s making, that society has the right to condemn behavior it morally disapproves. Most of the rest of his opinion presents arguments for why people can vote for discriminatory laws without hate, meaning moral disapproval, being the primary motive. I found this amazingly obtuse: the point is that you don’t make these distinctions unless you proceed from the grounds of moral disapproval as the justification for discrimination. You can hide this stuff behind arguments about practical issues when state laws conflict - like is a legally married couple treated as legally married for federal benefits if they live in a state now that doesn’t recognize legal marriage? - but it’s all about moral disapproval. </p>
<p>It’s like the majority and the dissents are speaking different languages. The majority looks at why the Senate, etc. passed a law and says it was because they intended to discriminate. The dissent by Scalia portrays that as defining this as “hate”, which is somewhat different, when he’s really arguing that “hate” like this is acceptable social judgement. My point is that Scalia - and to a lesser extent Alito - is extremely defensive, apparently because he doesn’t like to be labeled as a “hater” because his religious views require and justify actions which have no purpose other than discrimination. If you read that sentence carefully, you see the actual conflict which simmers just below and sometimes right at the surface in Scalia’s opinion. In other opinions he’s said discrimination against gays is ok. He can’t really say that here so he reacts by saying the label of discrimination is inappropriate because, if you really read it, it’s good discrimination.</p>
<p>In the CA case, I expected the ruling on standing to sue would come out this way. It allows the Court to not talk about gay marriage as a right. I’m not surprised Roberts wrote the opinion. The essence is at the end of Roberts’ opinion: “We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to. We decline to do so for the first time here.”</p>
<p>The dissent never gets to the real issue - which would be whether gay marriage is constitutional - because they have to write about standing to sue. The argument they make is that this was an initiative and these are initiative proponents. </p>
<p>I think a big lesson in cases like this is that justices find themselves on one side or the other of procedural issues like standing when they win or lose on the merits. The Roberts opinion is more what you’d call a political decision rooted in law in which the best answer is to defer the big questions of right and wrong by ruling there is no right to sue. The other 4 winning justices would likely say gay marriage is constitutionally protected and the other 4 would say no.</p>
<p>Hooray! Hooray! Hooray! I was watching as it hit the news… jumped out of my chair and started crying… on-line with friends overseas and here and on the phone with family… one of the best days ever!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We’ll all be there with you in spirit :)</p>
<p>I confess that I have a new-found love for scotusblog and Justice Kennedy!</p>
<p>From the ruling: “In determining whether a law is motivated by improper animus or purpose, discriminations of an unusual character especially require careful consideration. DOMA cannot survive under these principles.”</p>
<p>Wow! Feels so good to start the day with such great news! Lergnom, thank you for your summary of the dissenting opinions.</p>
<p>Great news, especially coming after yesterday.</p>
<p>I think this is the line from Kennedy’s opinion that will be quoted:</p>
<p>“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.”</p>
<p>I saw that in the NYT, to give credit. </p>
<p>The point, which is ignored by Scalia in particular, is actually pretty conservative if you think about federal power: if states say this then the federal government should stay out. As I’m sure will be often noted, Scalia uses that argument when he likes it.</p>
<p>^ I actually thought they might be able get another conservative on the striking down side of DOMA on the argument that these decisions should be left to the states with the federal government respecting that decision.</p>
<p>Even in Oklahoma a lot of people are overjoyed. One of my former professors is gay and it’s mind boggling how much things have changed since the 1980s. </p>
<p>Heck even in 2008 someone threw a steak at me for protesting against Prop 8.</p>
<p>I’ve seen some pretty funny tweets on the rulings, including: </p>
<p>Barney Frank: “I have yet to encounter a heterosexual man so moved by Jim and I that they left their wives.”</p>
<p>and</p>
<p>from Dan Amira: Justice Scalia, least self-aware person on planet, says the DOMA decision “demeans this institution.”</p>
<p>I am very pleased. Just as much as when New York passed same-sex marriage. </p>
<p>Regarding Scalia, I predicted a long time ago that any opinion (whether majority or dissent) authored by Scalia would contain the words “homosexual sodomy.” Indeed, his dissent contains exactly those words. He’s so predictable. His dissent is basically one big “I am not a hater” whine, replete with references to how this is supposedly a “stolen” victory, and how “sure” he is that the people who passed DOMA weren’t solely motivated by a desire to harm gay and lesbian people.</p>
<p>Type the word “gay” into google. :)</p>