# Supreme Court strikes down key part of DOMA

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-strikes-down-key-part-of-doma/661957>\
**Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\
**Created:** [June 26, 2013, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-strikes-down-key-part-of-doma/661957 "2013-06-26T14:16:43Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 5

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\
**Post date:** [June 28, 2013, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-strikes-down-key-part-of-doma/661957/81 "2013-06-28T18:19:51Z")

</div>

> [@Nametag](#):
>
> I found a couple of good articles on the standing of intervenor-defendants (warning: PDFs):
> 
> [One from long before these cases](http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1175&context=dlj) and [another directly addressing them](http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4775&context=flr).
> 
> It seems to me that the Court screwed up on both - that the Prop 8 proponents had standing as a matter of California state law, which SCOTUS should have recognized, and that BLAG lacked standing as a matter of federal law (including the Constitution), which for DOMA is the only law that matters.

If I understand things, the Supreme Court specifically said that although California state law might say that the Prop 8 proponents have standing, they are bound by federal law, not state law, and federal law says they do not have standing.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![computergeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e56c9b/32.png) [@computergeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/computergeek)\
**Post date:** [June 30, 2013, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-strikes-down-key-part-of-doma/661957/82 "2013-06-30T16:41:36Z")

</div>

Per [ScotusBlog](http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/new-marriage-challenge-fails/), the supporters of Prop 8 tried to get an emergency stay to keep gay marriages from going forward in CA, but SC Justice Kennedy denied the request.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e47c2d/32.png) [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hershele_Ostropoler)\
**Post date:** [July 1, 2013, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-strikes-down-key-part-of-doma/661957/83 "2013-07-01T06:13:26Z")

</div>

> [@computergeek](#):
>
> Is it just me or does reading the court opinion on DOMA give the idea that the Obama administration refused to refund the lady’s money in order to force the issue to get taken to court?

That’s definitely the impression I got: it was so there wouldn’t be an Article III issue where both parties actually want the same outcome.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\
**Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-strikes-down-key-part-of-doma/661957/84 "2013-07-03T01:48:32Z")

</div>

DOMA struck down?

Jesus marryin’ Joseph!

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-strikes-down-key-part-of-doma/661957.md?page=4)