My guess is yes. Unless my understanding of the ruling is incorrect, it is now left in the hands of the states to decide their individual policies on SSM.
I was amazed how blatant, ugly racism found a resurgence after the election of a (half-) African American. I wonder if the effective striking down of DOMA will motivate the anti-gay base of (oh, let’s just say one of two major American political parties) and we’ll see a rash of proposed amendments to state constitutions as their only remaining bulwark against “teh gays” during the 2014 midterm elections.
I say 2014 because given the steady acceptance of LGBTQVWXYZ year over year. The longer they wait, the less chance they have of it passing the electorate.
This will no doubt be in contrast to other states specifically granting SSM official recognition. Hell, I wonder if a single state could even have dueling ballot initiatives, respectively recognizing and banning SSM?
(This is all beside the point that — I have NO doubt — that every narrow-minded, backwards state that has SSM prohibitions on their books will eventually get around to sheepishly pulling them off.)
Pretty much every single red state (all of the South, the band of western midwest states from OK to ND, AZ, UT, WY, MT, ID, and AK) already have same-sex marriage bans in their state constitutions, so I don’t see what else they can do. WY is the one state that banned gay marriage by statute rather than constitutionally.
As I understand it, the DOMA decision doesn’t change anything for states where same-sex marriage is illegal. Marriage policy has always been up to the states and the DOMA decision affirms that. And, as Lamar points out, there’s not much more they can do that hasn’t already been done.
Yep, every state won by Romney* already prohibits same-sex marriage. In addition to Wyoming, Indiana and West Virginia prohibit it via statute rather than constitutional amendment, so I suppose those states could pass an amendment.
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas , Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming
Sure, but Loving did strike down anti-miscegenation laws, forcing the holdout states to allow “mixed-race” marriages. So there’s precedent for SCOTUS to interfere a bit with the state marriage laws. Given that they didn’t take up the question of the part of DOMA that allows States to refuse to recognized same-sex marriages from other States, seems only a matter of time before they have to deal with a case generated by a gay couple moving from, say, Maryland across the Potomac to Virginia. What’s the over-under on how soon that happens?
I think what will be telling will be the effect this has on the military. With DOMA struck down and the US armed forces recognizing same sex marriages performed in states where legal and now having same sex spouses eligible for benefits, the federal government will have some influence on the decisions that individual states make.
Currently, the Army is slated to eliminate 80,000 soldiers from its roster. Bases will be downsizing, affecting the economy of the states where they are located. Uncle Sam influence states to equalize marriage laws for more favorable consideration to keep troops.
The prospect of making money has affected other laws and statutes once considered immoral by the religious right. I have no expectations of this issue being any different.
Which would be struck down as a violation of the 1st amendment.
What’s going to happen next is that someone is going to challenge a particular state’s anti-SSM laws in federal court. And then the Block Robed Ones will have to actually make a decision instead of just punting.
If the S.Ct were to mandate nationwide that providing traditional marriage but not SSM is unconstitututional, state governments that oppose SSM would presumably have the option of eliminating all civil marriage within the state.
While that would seem to be in line with existing precedent, I don’t think that’s correct. It would satisfy the equal protection argument but not the underlying premise that marriage is a fundamental right.
It is not just the military. It is all federal employees. A federal employee in a SSM in one state (that recognizes SSM) moves to another state where it is not recognized. Their rights under federal law will not change. However, the receiving state’s laws means they will not be afford the same state-level rights as they enjoyed them in the state they just left. It remains to be seen how that conundrum is addressed.
Why would the Court’s finding (clear enough to us mere mortals) that discrimination against gays in marriage is unconstitutional at the federal level *not *also apply to the states? I understood the 14th Amendment was incorporated.
Or is Kennedy really that bad a writer/reasoner as to leave the issue open?