In two days, the Supreme Court of the U.S. issued three momentous decisions. One was to strike a portion of the 1965-enacted Voting Rights Act, and the other two had to do with same-sex marriage. I'll address the Voting Rights Act in a later post.
But first, if you'd like to see my other writing (including books), please click here
For now let's talk about DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) and California's Proposition 8. Both decisions were seen by most commentators as positive results for gay and lesbian rights.
DOMA - The court ruled as unconstitutional the provision that stated that even if a same-sex couple was legally married in a state recognizing such marriages, the couple would receive no marriage-related benefits from the federal (national) government.
Another provision of the Act not dealt with by today's decision also allows State X which doesn't recognize same-sex marriage to disregard a marriage performed in State Y which does.
The case the court decided stems from the death of one member of a lesbian marriage, resulting in an inheritance by her spouse and a huge estate tax bill that would not be charged if the marriage were recognized. The court ruled that the federal government had no right to not recognize the marriage that was allowed by law in the state where the couple lived.
In part, that's because other states and the federal government are obligated to give "full faith and credit" to the laws of the states, so long as those state laws are constitutional. The full faith and credit provision is part of the constitution.
My only quarrel with the court's opinion is that they should have ruled all of DOMA unconstitutional. If a gay couple is legally married in Vermont, Maine should have no right to choose to not recognize that marriage. That question is left unresolved by today's decision.
Proposition 8 - The ballot proposition was victorious in a statewide election in California. Prior to Prop. 8, the state's supreme court had ruled that the ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, and gay and lesbian couples were allowed to wed.
Prop. 8 was supported by various religious groups and was designed to do away with same-sex marriages.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which includes California and some other states ruled that Prop. 8 was unconstitutional on equal protection grounds. The constitution says that all citizens will receive equal protection under the law.
Normally, when a state passes a law by legislation or initiative, the state defends that law if challenged in court. In this case, two governors of California - one from each party - believed that Prop. 8 was unconstitutional, so refused to defend it in the courts.
A group consisting of folks who'd sponsored the proposition stepped in.
The Court of Appeals, as indicated above, ruled Prop. 8 unconstitutional. The Supremes did something different. In a 5-4 decision, they dismissed the appeal from the Court of Appeals' decision, because the people representing the initiative didn't have "standing" to defend the proposition.
Standing is a legal concept that says you have to be a party who's "aggrieved," i.e., you have to be more at risk than any average citizen. The Court said that the state would have a right to defend the proposition, but the defenders who stepped in - to the extent there is/was a risk to anyone - were no more at risk than any other citizen.
While the Court was right and many of us applaud their decision, the reason for that decision is a bit troubling (I wished they had ruled as the appellate court did). Let's imagine voters in the state of Texas deciding through the initiative process, that there should be no additional restrictions on a woman who wants an abortion. If that were challenged in a lawsuit, it's a fair guess that Governor Perry of that state wouldn't defend it. Does that mean the will of the voters is shot down because no one else has standing to defend the new law? Based on today's reasoning, the answer would be yes, that's exactly what it means.
Thanks.
