Same-sex marriage rulings affirm a movement

In the Supreme Court of the United States, justices put what would seem to be the law’s stamp of approval on same-sex marriage, striking down the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and allowing a lower court decision to stand on California’s Proposition 8. The proposition made same-sex marriage illegal in the most populous state.

• United States v Windsor, here, Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional
• Hollingsworth v Perry, here, no standing to appeal a California ruling

In United States v Windsor, which held that the Defense of Marriage Act, signed and later renounced by President Bill Clinton, was unconstitutional in Section 3, where the definition of marriage was inserted, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the Court:

For same-sex couples who wished to be married, the State acted to give their lawful conduct a lawful status. This status is a far-reaching legal acknowledgment of the intimate relationship between two people, a relationship deemed by the State worthy of dignity in the community equal with all other marriages. It reflects both the community’s considered perspective on the historical roots of the institution of marriage and its evolving understanding of the meaning of equality. …

DOMA seeks to injure the very class New York seeks to protect. By doing so it violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government.

After reading the decision in the DNA case a few weeks ago, which was mostly a molecular biology textbook, this decision was refreshingly nontechnical. In a dissenting opinion—both cases were decided by a 5-4 majority—Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the courts weren’t the right place for this decision:

[The Court’s finding that it can rule on this case] is jaw-dropping. It is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’s Representatives in Congress and the Executive. It envisions a Supreme Court standing (or rather enthroned) at the apex of government, empowered to decide all constitutional questions, always and everywhere “primary” in its role.

Although the ruling in California affects only certain plaintiffs who support same-sex marriage and enjoins only certain public officials, it’s unlikely that other public officials in California will deny the same protections granted by this decision to a few plaintiffs to other plaintiffs in the future. It will take a few weeks (at least 25 days) for the Supreme Court to funnel its ruling down to the lower court, but the ball’s in motion.

Various conservative and religious groups have already come out in strong opposition to the ruling. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops, for example, said the rulings marked a “tragic day for marriage and our nation” in a statement, here.

But despite opposition, the movement to support same-sex marriage and put it on equal footing with traditional marriage between a man and a woman is sweeping the country. Same-sex marriage is prohibited by law in 37 states, but the number is decreasing. As of Aug 1, marriage equality will be a reality in the District of Columbia and 13 states: California, Connecticut, Delaware (where a new law takes effect July 1), Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota (where a new law takes effect Aug 1), New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island (Aug 1), Vermont, and Washington.