1. SPS Accounts:
    Do you find yourself coming back time after time? Do you appreciate the ongoing hard work to keep this community focused and successful in its mission? Please consider supporting us by upgrading to an SPS Account. Besides the warm and fuzzy feeling that comes from supporting a good cause, you'll also get a significant number of ever-expanding perks and benefits on the site and the forums. Click here to find out more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
You are currently viewing Boards o' Magick as a guest, but you can register an account here. Registration is fast, easy and free. Once registered you will have access to search the forums, create and respond to threads, PM other members, upload screenshots and access many other features unavailable to guests.

BoM cultivates a friendly and welcoming atmosphere. We have been aiming for quality over quantity with our forums from their inception, and believe that this distinction is truly tangible and valued by our members. We'd love to have you join us today!

(If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you've forgotten your username or password, click here.)

DOMA - and the dissent

Discussion in 'Alley of Lingering Sighs' started by Aldeth the Foppish Idiot, Jun 26, 2013.

  1. Aldeth the Foppish Idiot

    Aldeth the Foppish Idiot Armed with My Mallet O' Thinking Veteran

    Joined:
    May 15, 2003
    Messages:
    12,434
    Media:
    46
    Likes Received:
    250
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't think it came as a surprise to many that the Supreme Court struck down the DOMA legislation. The basic argument was that marriage has always been up to the states to decide, and so the government basically has to go along with whatever the state decides is a legal marriage. So if you are a same sex couple and you live in a state that allows same sex marriage (and you're married), you get all the federal benefits that come along with being married as well. If you live in a state that doesn't allow same sex marriage, you're still SOL.

    What is far more interesting to me is Scaila's dissenting opinion. All I can say is: WOW! To call it scathing would be putting it mildly. It is quite possibly the most heated rebuttal of a majority opinion that I have ever read. It disagrees that the case had standing in even the Circuit Court - never mind the Supreme Court, it disagrees with the reasoning behind the majority opinion, and feels that the even if you agree with the judgement (with which he clearly does not) it produced an incomplete and inadequate answer to the question at hand.

    Here's the whole court decision. Scalia's dissent follows the court opinion, so you'll have to scroll down to read it. Link
     
  2. pplr Gems: 18/31
    Latest gem: Horn Coral


    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2008
    Messages:
    1,032
    Media:
    2
    Likes Received:
    35
    Ok, though do you have any thoughts on or read anything into that it was Kennedy who helped overturn DOMA in this case?
     
  3. Aldeth the Foppish Idiot

    Aldeth the Foppish Idiot Armed with My Mallet O' Thinking Veteran

    Joined:
    May 15, 2003
    Messages:
    12,434
    Media:
    46
    Likes Received:
    250
    Gender:
    Male
    Um... well... yeah. Kennedy wrote the voted for ruling DOMA unconstitutional, and even wrote the majority opinion. So of course he helped.

    Although I agree with striking down the DOMA legislation, there is merit in Scalia's dissent. This case concerned a woman in New York who had a legally recognized same sex marriage in the state. When her spouse died, she was named the sole recipient of the will. However, because the federal government did not recognize her marriage, the inheritence was subject to an estate tax to the tune of over $300,000. She sued in District Court. She won, and the President said he agreed with the decision. Normally that ends the case.

    Inexplicably, the case still went on to Circuit Court. The Circuit Court affirmed the lower court's decision, and again the President agreed. This REALLY should have ended the case. Nonetheless, the case went on to the Supreme Court.

    Scalia's first argument was that the purpose of the SCOTUS is to be the final word in settling disputes, and since there was no dispute to settle - both parties agreed with the ruling - then why the hell do we need to even take the case?

    Scalia then went on to point out that marriage isn't mentioned anywhere in the US Constitution, and that marriage has always fallen under the authority of the individual states as a result. (Through the 10th Amendment - that all powers not given to the federal government are ceded to the individual states, of which marriage is one.) He went on to say that the federal government never even needed to pass the law - there was no need to stick their nose into a states rights issue - and that it wasn't a particularly good piece of legislation.

    However, he argued that if you were going to take the case and rule on it, at least have the decency to make a complete ruling. Since the ruling only applies to states that currently allow gay marriage, what happens when a gay married couple move from a state that allows it to one that doesn't? This will invariably happen at some point. They won't qualify for state benefits, because the state doesn't recognize their marriage. Does that mean they still get the federal benefits or do they lose them too?

    At issue is that the part of DOMA that was under review was Section 3 that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. They did not strike down section 2, as that wasn't at debate, that says states don't have to accept other states definition of marriage. So that's a hot mess. Scalia's belief was that all this ruling did was set up another case for the SCOTUS next year to rule on the inevitable question that this case left unanswered. He felt that if you were going to rule on this case, you could at least have the decency to pass a ruling that would set the laws for the nation. This was evident in his last paragraph:

     
  4. dmc

    dmc Speak softly and carry a big briefcase Staff Member Distinguished Member ★ SPS Account Holder Resourceful Adored Veteran New Server Contributor [2012] (for helping Sorcerer's Place lease a new, more powerful server!)

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2001
    Messages:
    8,731
    Media:
    88
    Likes Received:
    379
    Gender:
    Male
    I actually really liked Scalia's dissent. IMO, he's absolutely right that the Court had no business taking the case. I also think that the proper way for this to go would be for Congress and the President to pass a better law than DOMA to supersede it. From the purely legal perspective that the Court is supposed to operate under, it should have upheld DOMA.

    That being said, from a personal perspective, I'm glad it struck it down.

    I really enjoyed, by the way, Scalia's reference to the Federal Government requiring Utah to outlaw polygamy in order to become a state. Very interesting argument.


    By the by, the treatment of the California case was very interesting to me, in that they punted the way Scalia would have punted in the DOMA case, but did so in the face of a California Supreme Court certification that the appellants had actual standing, which was lacking in the DOMA case. Veeerrrry interesting. I liked the dissent in that case better than the majority as well.

    Linky
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2013
Sorcerer's Place is a project run entirely by fans and for fans. Maintaining Sorcerer's Place and a stable environment for all our hosted sites requires a substantial amount of our time and funds on a regular basis, so please consider supporting us to keep the site up & running smoothly. Thank you!

Sorcerers.net is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to products on amazon.com, amazon.ca and amazon.co.uk. Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.