Today, the Supreme Court ruled Section 3 of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. This means that the federal government cannot deny federal benefits (and obligations) to gay couples if they live in a state that recognizes gay marriage. In the majority opinion [pdf], Justice Kennedy ruled that Section 3 is “a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment.”
[DOMA] imposes a disability on the class by refusing to acknowledge a status the State finds to be dignified and proper. DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others. The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment. This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages.
Beyond that, the Court has not ruled on wider protection for gay marriage, or for other protections in general. Advocates for gay rights see today’s ruling as the first step towards greater acceptance. Opponents claim that God will rain frogs and locusts upon us any minute now. Fox News and WND should be especially entertaining today.
That said, I don’t think this was the right decision. I agree with Justice Kennedy that DOMA was a spiteful, unfair law designed to denigrate a specific group of people. However, this is an equal protection case that doesn’t invoke equal protection. If it did, it would have been decided on 14th Amendment grounds rather than 5th Amendment grounds. As such, Section 2 of DOMA still stands, and it allows states to refuse recognition of marriages performed in other states. Gays are now left with a situation in which their rights will vary from state to state, and there’s no standard for review.
The Court declined to rule on Hollingsworth v. Perry since the plaintiffs lacked standing. Essentially, the state of California refused to defend the case, and the Court found that a private party could not argue it in the state’s place. As such, the 9th Circuit decision striking down Proposition 8 stands.