Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Reblogged: With DOMA Decision, Supreme Court Correctly Recognizes Lega

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Screen-Shot-2013-06-26-at-1.14.42-PM-300Today the Supreme Court ruled the federal government may not discriminate against gay couples recognized by states as married. By throwing out the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which forbade the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, the Supreme Court ruled that DOMA resulted in “deprivation of an essential part of the liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment.”

Although I have not read the entire decision and cannot vouch for all of its reasoning, the court’s description of the case in question illustrates why the ruling is a victory for gay couples in achieving equal legal protection—and for everyone concerned with such protection:

The State of New York recognizes the marriage of New York residents Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, who wed in Ontario, Canada, in 2007. When Spyer died in 2009, she left her entire estate to Windsor. Windsor sought to claim the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses, but was barred from doing so by §3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which amended the Dictionary Act—a law providing rules of construction for over 1,000 federal laws and the whole realm of federal regulations—to define “marriage” and “spouse” as excluding same-sex partners. Windsor paid $363,053 in estate taxes and sought a refund, which the Internal Revenue Service denied.

Congratulations to Windsor, other gay couples, and everyone concerned with equal treatment under the law, for this victory.

Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our weekly digest. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal, The Objective Standard.

Related:

Creative Commons Image: Jose Antonio Navas



Link to Original
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose this is a victory of sorts. But it seemed like the most enthusiastic supporters were the same people who denounce greed and champion wealth redistribution, support Obama for superficial reasons, or have some other non-thinking position about something. So, I wouldn't call it a political victory in the broadest sense. It will certainly improve the lives of many gay couples who can take advantage of government loopholes now, and who also won't have to worry about legal disputes.

But, I think the trend would have continued down this path for unpolitical reasons either way, simply because younger generations don't view homosexuality differently than heterosexuality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, I think the trend would have continued down this path for unpolitical reasons either way, simply because younger generations don't view homosexuality differently than heterosexuality.

That's a pretty good bet. Still, history seems to be a combination of both these things: ideas slowly creeping into common practice and acceptance, but also concrete people or events that act as catalysts.

Politically, there's an irony here: if gay marriage becomes settled law across the country, and people accept that it is here to stay, it would end the issue as a political factor in elections.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Politically, there's an irony here: if gay marriage becomes settled law across the country, and people accept that it is here to stay, it would end the issue as a political factor in elections.

Didn't think about that. Down that same direction, a lot of people view the religious view on gays at best as a joke and at worst offensive. A positive trend I've noticed tagging along supporters of gays is a distancing from religion. It would be a huge positive if Christians began being viewed as old fashioned, or some other similar negative, piggy-backing on the gay issue.

There isn't an easy political scapegoat for Christian appeal now that gay marriage isn't available, is there? Who are they going to target for the vote, divorcees?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose this is a victory of sorts. But it seemed like the most enthusiastic supporters were the same people who denounce greed and champion wealth redistribution, support Obama for superficial reasons, or have some other non-thinking position about something. So, I wouldn't call it a political victory in the broadest sense. It will certainly improve the lives of many gay couples who can take advantage of government loopholes now, and who also won't have to worry about legal disputes.

 

Yup, it is one victory to mark off on the Political "To DO" List

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There isn't an easy political scapegoat for Christian appeal now that gay marriage isn't available, is there? Who are they going to target for the vote, divorcees?

Anti-abortion is the main rallying cry of the nuttier GOP sub-groups, and immigration seems to be joining it.

Today, the most problematic step in Presidential elections is the GOP primary. People like Santorum, Michelle Bachmann, and Sarah Palin actually appear to have a shot because they have support among the more evangelical sub-groups. I doubt one of them is going to get the nomination soon, but the real impact is that the guys who are relatively middle-of-road on social issues (Romney, McCain) try to placate that part of their party.

Immigration reform is another area where we might see this ironic effect. If it passes, it becomes less of an issue (at least for a couple of elections). So, the GOP nominee does not need to make extra xenophobic remarks. Chris Christie must be hoping for it to go through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a pretty good bet. Still, history seems to be a combination of both these things: ideas slowly creeping into common practice and acceptance, but also concrete people or events that act as catalysts.

Politically, there's an irony here: if gay marriage becomes settled law across the country, and people accept that it is here to stay, it would end the issue as a political factor in elections.

I wouldn't underestimate the Republicans' ability to make established laws into issues, especially with a little help from the media. They've been doing it with abortion rights for decades, to the point where idiotic comments by members of his own party probably cost Romney the election.

All it takes is one religious nut commenting about it every four years, and the media will be happy to broadcast it around the clock right up to election day. Case and point:

Huckabee-SCOTUS-DOMA-Tweet.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't underestimate the Republicans' ability to make established laws into issues,...

Yeah, I guess it's folly to be optimistic about politicians, the ideologues behind them and those who listen. On this one issue of homosexual marriage, though, I think the die is cast.

Just after posting this, I saw what Rand Paul said.

 

“I think this is the conundrum and gets back to what you were saying in the opening — whether or not churches should decide this. But it is difficult because if we have no laws on this people take it to one extension further. Does it have to be humans?

“You know, I mean, so there really are, the question is what social mores, can some social mores be part of legislation? Historically we did at the state legislative level, we did allow for some social mores to be part of it. Some of them were said to be for health reasons and otherwise, but I’m kind of with you, I see the thousands-of-year tradition of the nucleus of the family unit. I also see that economically, if you just look without any kind of moral periscope and you say, what is it that is the leading cause of poverty in our country? It’s having kids without marriage. The stability of the marriage unit is enormous and we should not just say oh we’re punting on it, marriage can be anything.”

 

Beware: the doggie-marriage coalition may inherit the rainbow coalition's mantle!

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unable to think in terms of principles, the mystics of spirit are at it again with their team player, Tim Huelskamp: "Constitutional Amendment to Ban Gay Marriage"

"Huelskamp said he plans to introduce the Federal Marriage Amendment later this week, a measure that would define marriage as between one man and one woman. DOMA did the same thing, but was a federal law, not a constitutional amendment."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unable to think in terms of principles, the mystics of spirit are at it again with their team player, Tim Huelskamp: "Constitutional Amendment to Ban Gay Marriage"

"Huelskamp said he plans to introduce the Federal Marriage Amendment later this week, a measure that would define marriage as between one man and one woman. DOMA did the same thing, but was a federal law, not a constitutional amendment."

 

It has no hope of passing, but I suppose it does not matter to this type of politician.... or, perhaps he is happier this way: there is one issue he can keep fighting for, all his life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...