*I know it’s not writing or camping, but it is something so significant, that I feel it deserves noteworthy attention, and examination to try and understand what exactly the rulings are and what they mean.*
It is June 26, 2013. Today the Supreme Court of the United States of America ruled on two cases regarding same-sex marriages. I will examine both of them in turn, starting with the Court’s decision to strike down DOMA.
*A quick note: Everything I quote is from the Opinion of the Court, written by Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy.*
First I want to just put down the actual ruling, as written by Kennedy, to be as clear as possible what it is that the court actually decided today. “What has been explained to this point should more than suffice to establish that the principal purpose and the necessary effect of this law are to demean those persons who are in a lawful same-sex marriage. This requires the Court to hold, as it now does, that DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.”
I shall mention, though not bother to cover in great detail, that the first part of the ruling covers the Court’s consideration of the validity of the case. Looking at the case as “unusual,” it was decided by the majority that the Court had the authority to consider the issue.
There are two primary aspects the majority focused on in their arguments for striking down Section 3 of DOMA and those are considering the intent of DOMA and state powers against federal powers.
To start off, Kennedy notes what DOMA does and does not do. “The definitional provision does not by its terms forbid States from enacting laws permitting same-sex marriages or civil unions or providing state benefits to residents in that status. The enactment’s comprehensive definition of marriage for purposes of all federal statutes and other regulations or directives covered by its terms, however, does control over 1,000 federal laws in which marital or spousal status is addressed as a matter of federal law.”
Essentially he is saying here that DOMA does not state the performance of same-sex marriages is illegal. It states that the over 1,000 federal benefits or “laws in which marital or spousal status is addressed as a matter of federal law” are directed towards the Act’s definition of marriage, which is “In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.” In short, the act denies the federal benefits to same-sex couples because federal benefits can only be directed to the Act’s definition of a spouse, which it specifically identifies as a person of the opposite sex.
Next, Kennedy considers the intent of the Act. He writes, “The history of DOMA’s enactment and its own text demonstrate that interference with the equal dignity of same-sex marriages, a dignity conferred by the States in the exercise of their sovereign power, was more than an incidental effect of the federal statute. It was its essence. The House Report announced its conclusion that ‘it is both appropriate and necessary for Congress to do what it can to defend the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage. … The effort to redefine ‘marriage’ to extend to homosexual couples is a truly radical proposal that would fundamentally alter the institution of marriage.’ … The House concluded that DOMA expresses ‘both moral disapproval of homosexuality, and a moral conviction that heterosexuality better comports with traditional (especially JudeoChristian) morality.’ The stated purpose of the law was to promote an ‘interest in protecting the traditional moral teachings reflected in heterosexual-only marriage laws.’ Were there any doubt of this far-reaching purpose, the title of the Act confirms it: The Defense of Marriage.”
Kennedy identifies the intent of the Act, in its own words, as to preserve a moral conviction of heterosexual marriage over homosexual marriage. He even uses the title of the Act itself, “The Defense of Marriage,” as proof of what it is attempting to do. He shows skepticism and criticism of this intended goal writing, “The Act’s demonstrated purpose is to ensure that if any State decides to recognize same-sex marriages, those unions will be treated as second-class marriages for purposes of federal law. This raises a most serious question under the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment.”
That connection from what DOMA does to what its intent was when it was written leads Kennedy back to the Fifth Amendment and questioning that it is in line with the basic protection in the Bill of Rights. He then uses the purpose of the Act to describe how it interferes with “the States’ sovereign power.”
He writes next, “DOMA’s operation in practice confirms this purpose [ensuring second-class marriages for purposes of federal law]. When New York adopted a law to permit same-sex marriage, it sought to eliminate inequality; but DOMA frustrates that objective through a system-wide enactment with no identified connection to any particular area of federal law. DOMA writes inequality into the entire United States Code. The particular case at hand concerns the estate tax, but DOMA is more than a simple determination of what should or should not be allowed as an estate tax refund. Among the over 1,000 statutes and numerous federal regulations that DOMA controls are laws pertaining to Social Security, housing, taxes, criminal sanctions, copyright, and veterans’ benefits.”
Kennedy’s state specific example is New York, and how New York, using its Tenth Amendment freedom, “adopted a law to permit same-sex marriage.” He then wrote how “DOMA frustrates that objective,” by putting down a “system-wide enactment” or a federal law that is isolated from any other legal requirement the federal government controls, the last argument in line that I will look at that Kennedy uses to demonstrate the unconstitutionality of DOMA.
In the Opinion of the Court, Kennedy has examined what it is that DOMA does and does not do as it was originally written. From there he identifies what the intent of what it does and how that, in his opinion, is out of line with the powers granted to states, secured in the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (though he never refers to that amendment specifically) and how it violates the citizen protections that stem from the Fifth Amendment.
*This is a very brief over view of some of the most crucial points in Kennedy’s argument. It must be understood that Kennedy supplies numerous examples and elaborates on each point in great detail and care. I am simply attempting to piece together the biggest arguments of the ruling to help others understand it.*
Below are a few quotes from the Opinion of the Court, that Kennedy writes to demonstrate some federal benefits that DOMA denied same-sex couples.
“It prohibits them from being buried together in veterans’ cemeteries.”
“The federal penal code makes it a crime to “assaul[t], kidna[p], or murde[r] . . . a member of the immediate family” of “a United States official, a United States judge, [or] a Federal law enforcement officer. Although a “spouse” qualifies as a member of the officer’s “immediate
family,” §115(c)(2), DOMA makes this protection inapplicable to same-sex spouses.”
“It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.”
Writing Between the Lines 