Supreme Court Strikes Down Defense of Marriage Act

This discusses two rulings. DOMA and Proposition 8. I like the DOMA decision. I like the specific result of the Proposition 8 ruling, but do not like the way they got there.<p>The issue with proposition 8 is that California lost, and then chose not to appeal. Lawyers for the group that passed proposition 8 then stepped in and took the case. Their argument basically was that if they were not allowed to do this, then any proposition passed by Californians that the government did not like the government could unpass by posting a lackluster defense and then not appealing it.<p>The 9th circuit did not know whether they should grant standing. They remanded it to the California Supreme Court to decide that. The California Supreme Court said that under California law they did have standing. The 9th heard it. The Supreme Court has now disagreed.<p>But I agree with that argument from the supporters of proposition 8. California gives voters the power to pass proposition that the state does not like. The state has now been handed a legal tool which undermines that in federal court. (I do not understand precedent well enough to know whether state courts will look to the Supreme Court or the California Supreme Court on this.)

It is constantly surprising to me how nearly-deterministic these votes are: each respective quartet of the court votes along what&#x27;s seen as party lines, with Kennedy being the swing vote. Is it because the court really is that partisan, or because the technicalities and details in each case fall sharply along judicial philosophical lines? With life terms, it&#x27;s not as if the justices need to vote a certain way to keep office.

Here is the text of the ruling. Supreme Court rulings always start out with a very readable syllabus which provides an overview of the ruling, recommended read:<p><a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.supremecourt.gov&#x2F;opinions&#x2F;12pdf&#x2F;12-307_g2bh.pdf</a>

Curious how this affects startups (along with overturning Prop 8), given the large population of gay people in tech. Presumably since you still need to get married in a SSM-supporting state, those states continue to win out. But federal benefits for immigration and incidental travel to non-SSM states would apply?<p>The biggest tech centers are now all in SSM-supporting states; TX, VA, CO, IL, and NC seem like the most important holdouts.<p>However, they only struck down the federal part, not the requirement that states recognize each other, so there&#x27;s still a strong incentive to stay in an SSM-ok state even after marriage in an SSM state.

Prop 8 goes down as well. <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.supremecourt.gov&#x2F;opinions&#x2F;12pdf&#x2F;12-144_8ok0.pdf</a>

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court did not strike down DOMA. Section 2 of the Act, which lets states refuse to recognize same-sex marriages established by other states, remains intact.

Does this mean Glenn Greenwald can move back to the US now?

Independent of whether this is a good decision, I thought that the Supreme Court&#x27;s mandate was to decide whether a law violates the Constitution and little more. Doesn&#x27;t this sort of judicial activism weaken the separation of powers, or is there a legitimate argument to be made that this law violated a constitutional right of gay couples? If there is, it doesn&#x27;t seem that the court quotes it.<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. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others.”

I&#x27;m elated. There might be some hope for this country, after all.

This is a really good thing. Not because I want everybody to marry their same gender [1] (each has the right to choose whom adult to love)], but rather because if they can get protection it means that we as a nation are moving in the right direction. It means we are becoming less judgmental and prejudiced for the sake of it. At least I hope so.<p>[1] Personally though I think two woman having sex is kinky and quite erotic. Two guys, not so much but to each their own. I&#x27;m male by the way.