# DOMA struck down in a 5-4 decision **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 26, 2013, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doma-struck-down-in-a-5-4-decision/661962 "2013-06-26T15:06:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Enderw24](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba9def/32.png) [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doma-struck-down-in-a-5-4-decision/661962/1 "2013-06-26T15:06:52Z")
> **[12-307\_g2bh.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdf)** There’s the PDF of the opinion of the court and its three dissenting opinions. Here’s a key part of the opinion from page 4 > [@](#): > > DOMA’s principal effect is to identify and make unequal a subset of > state-sanctioned marriages. It contrives to deprive some couples > married under the laws of their State, but not others, of both rights > and responsibilities, creating two contradictory marriage regimes > within the same State. It also forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of > federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic > personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and > protect. Pp. 20–26. I haven’t read all of it. In fact, I haven’t read most of it yet. Feel free to do so yourself! What confuses me is Chief Robert’s dissent (found on page 31), which doesn’t touch upon the merits of the case. Instead, he argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction to review this decision from the lower courts. I don’t get that argument. The court granted Cert. Chief Roberts granted Cert! By doing so, he was giving the A-OK to the Court hearing this case. How can he then turn around and say “nope. We actually didn’t.”? And Scalia saying that the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear a case? That’s fucking rich. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doma-struck-down-in-a-5-4-decision/661962/2 "2013-06-26T15:11:01Z")
One can only think they were looking for a plausible excuse not to vote in support of ickiness and against God. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doma-struck-down-in-a-5-4-decision/661962/3 "2013-06-26T15:13:09Z")
The granting of cert and jurisdiction are two different things. Cert is just the discretionary decision to a review a case. The Court can review it in order to find that the court lacks jurisdiction, as it did today in the Prop 8 case. To put it another way, the Court always has jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction to decide the merits. The Court’s jurisdiction to decide the merits is determined by Article III of the Constitution. The dissents’ argument is that there is no “case or controversy” when the President agrees that the statute is unconstitutional. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doma-struck-down-in-a-5-4-decision/661962/4 "2013-06-26T15:14:36Z")
Granted Cert != deciding the case. ---
**Author:** ![Enderw24](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba9def/32.png) [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doma-struck-down-in-a-5-4-decision/661962/5 "2013-06-26T15:20:49Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Granted Cert != deciding the case. True, but the dissent (at least Roberts and part 1 of Scalia) didn’t decide anything regarding its merits. ---
**Author:** ![Eva\_Luna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e495f1/32.png) [@Eva\_Luna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eva_Luna)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doma-struck-down-in-a-5-4-decision/661962/6 "2013-06-26T15:22:23Z")
My most burning practical question of the moment is what this will mean in the near term for same-sex immigration to the U.S. My best guess is that it will work like first cousin marriage (which is legally valid in some states, but not all): if the marriage is legally valid in the state where the couple is residing, it will be valid for U.S. immigration purposes. How this will shake out, regulatory-wise, I have no clue, but it will take some time and be pretty messy in the meantime. Eva Luna, Immigration Paralegal ---
**Author:** ![Theios](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e8c25b/32.png) [@Theios](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Theios)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doma-struck-down-in-a-5-4-decision/661962/7 "2013-06-26T15:23:42Z")
Not only am I not a lawyer, but I’m also pretty confused by most legalize. Living in Georgia, what does this mean for me? Being that SSM is not legal here, what does the roadmap look like for me to actually be able to marry my partner in the future? ---
**Author:** ![Valteron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f17d59/32.png) [@Valteron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Valteron)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doma-struck-down-in-a-5-4-decision/661962/8 "2013-06-26T15:24:59Z")
The four dissenting judges could have saved time by simply cribbing their notes from the Dred Scott Decision of 1857, _mutatis mutandis._ In both cases, members of a comfortable majority were telling members of a despised minority: “ **YOU** equal to **ME**? Fuck off!” They could have quoted directly from the 1857 decision to say that gays are “so far inferior that they have no rights which the straight majority is bound to respect.” Even if they write 2,000 pages of dissenting opinion, that is what it works out to. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doma-struck-down-in-a-5-4-decision/661962/9 "2013-06-26T15:25:54Z")
> [@Theios](#): > > Not only am I not a lawyer, but I’m also pretty confused by most legalize. > > Living in Georgia, what does this mean for me? Being that SSM is not legal here, what does the roadmap look like for me to actually be able to marry my partner in the future? You can get married in one of the states permitting same-sex marriage if you meet that state’s rules for who can marry there. That will entitle you to some of the federal rights made available by today’s ruling (the one’s based on where you got married), but not others (the ones based on whether your state recognizes your marriage). ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doma-struck-down-in-a-5-4-decision/661962/10 "2013-06-26T15:27:19Z")
Still, the Supremes ruling that discrimination against same sex couples is unconstitutional is going to be very hard for the remaining states to resist. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doma-struck-down-in-a-5-4-decision/661962/11 "2013-06-26T15:27:33Z")
Also not a lawyer, but from what I can tell you have three options: (a) move out of Georgia (not likely, I’m sure), (b) get Georgia to pass a law recognizing SSM (even less likely), or © get married somewhere that recognizes SSM and doesn’t have a residency requirement and then go back to Georgia. In © you won’t get any state recognition or benefits, but you will likely be eligible for some federal protections and responsibilities. ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doma-struck-down-in-a-5-4-decision/661962/12 "2013-06-26T15:35:10Z")
I understand the Prop 8 ruling being close, but it is really disappointing that such an important ruling as the validity of DOMA was 5-4. ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doma-struck-down-in-a-5-4-decision/661962/13 "2013-06-26T15:39:09Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > In (c) you won’t get any state recognition or benefits, but you will likely be eligible for some federal protections and responsibilities. That will be an interesting follow-up case. But in the meantime, it would be nice for states that do have gay marriage to deny the validity of marriages from states that do not recognize gay marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doma-struck-down-in-a-5-4-decision/661962/14 "2013-06-26T15:39:15Z")
First Impressions of the Windsor ruling: Why, O why do they allow Kennedy to write the opinion in these kinds of cases? His writing is average at best, and his legal analysis is all over the place. He simply meshes all these different ideas together in a big ball and declares DOMA violates the constitution, without the legal formalism that the Supreme Court should be using. It’s another Lawrence v. Texas (although Lawrence is a touch better than this one) of flexible legal analysis. Those kinds of opinions only give guys like Scalia ammo so his supporters can pretend he’s some kind of legal genius instead. Scalia is, once again, the Rush Limbaugh of the Supreme Court. Alito’s opinion is so much better written, with much better legal analysis, than Scalia’s diatribe. It’s also wrong. I don’t think the dissent does a very good job of making the argument that there wasn’t a case or controversy here. There was an adverse judgment below, there were two sides of the issue that were both briefed and argued well, and a legitimate interest in those sides. I understand the highly legalistic definition of “case or controversy” that they use, but I disagree there wasn’t one in this case. Hopefully I’ll have some time later to get more in depth. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doma-struck-down-in-a-5-4-decision/661962/15 "2013-06-26T15:43:18Z")
Since there isn’t a separate thread on the Prop 8 ruling yet, and I’m out of time, I’ll simply add that the biggest surprise in both these cases, the one thing that has me staring shocked at the opinion, is this part: “ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which SCALIA, GINSBURG, BREYER, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS, ALITO, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined.” ---
**Author:** ![Theios](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e8c25b/32.png) [@Theios](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Theios)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doma-struck-down-in-a-5-4-decision/661962/16 "2013-06-26T15:43:43Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > You can get married in one of the states permitting same-sex marriage if you meet that state’s rules for who can marry there. That will entitle you to some of the federal rights made available by today’s ruling (the one’s based on where you got married), but not others (the ones based on whether your state recognizes your marriage). Seriously?! That’s more than I’d hoped for at this point. Now to break out the google-fu and try to find a Theios-Friendly description of what the Federal Protections/Responsibilities might be, since the state level stuff won’t apply to us at this point. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doma-struck-down-in-a-5-4-decision/661962/17 "2013-06-26T15:46:02Z")
> [@Theios](#): > > Seriously?! That’s more than I’d hoped for at this point. Now to break out the google-fu and try to find a Theios-Friendly description of what the Federal Protections/Responsibilities might be, since the state level stuff won’t apply to us at this point. In the coming days there will be easy-to-understand charts put out by people at the ACLU, HRC, etc. I think James Esseks’s press conference today will touch on this stuff. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Lowry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Sam\_Lowry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Lowry)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doma-struck-down-in-a-5-4-decision/661962/18 "2013-06-26T15:51:17Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > Also not a lawyer, but from what I can tell you have three options: (a) move out of Georgia (not likely, I’m sure), (b) get Georgia to pass a law recognizing SSM (even less likely), or (c) get married somewhere that recognizes SSM and doesn’t have a residency requirement and then go back to Georgia. > > In (c) you won’t get any state recognition or benefits, but you will likely be eligible for some federal protections and responsibilities. > [@fumster](#): > > That will be an interesting follow-up case. But in the meantime, it would be nice for states that do have gay marriage to deny the validity of marriages from states that do not recognize gay marriage. So is that maybe the next step, that a couple from Georgia (or wherever) will get married in New York, come back to Georgia, and sue the state of Georgia for state recognition? Everyone is busy celebrating the ruling right now, which I don’t begrudge anyone, but I’m really curious about what will happen next. ---
**Author:** ![yanceylebeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yanceylebeef/32/12290_2.png) [@yanceylebeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yanceylebeef)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doma-struck-down-in-a-5-4-decision/661962/19 "2013-06-26T15:56:43Z")
From Scalia’s dissent… “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” So, in 24 hours he went from second guessing congress for Voting Rights is all fine and dandy, but not when it comes to your dirty little places. Is this level of cognitive dissonence mendacity or insanity at this point? ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2013, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doma-struck-down-in-a-5-4-decision/661962/20 "2013-06-26T15:57:50Z")
Scalia is just a big whiny titty baby who couldn’t make a coherent or logical argument that supported itself. He was the little Dutch boy trying to plug up the dike with his fat sausage fingers only to find his thoughts couldn’t be contained anymore and they just folded onto themselves. What a mess. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doma-struck-down-in-a-5-4-decision/661962.md?page=2)