DOMA also known as “The Defense of Marriage Act” has been declared unconstitutional on 6/26/13 by the United States Supreme Court on equal protection grounds. This makes sense to me. How this will play out remains to be seen; everything in life and in law has trade-offs. In my opinion the State does not belong in the marriage business other than to record marriages and each religion should be able to set its own religious criteria for what marriages can be solemnized. My belief is that God loves all his children. The full decision is at this link: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdf
Please share widely!
Christopher says
The Prop 8 case was dismissed for lack of standing. Since the circuit ruling had struck down Prop 8 that decision stands and the way is clear for marriage equality to return to California!
The state absolutely belongs in the marriage business, however, for all those rights that come with it. There are of course plenty of people without religion who need to be able to access those rights as well if they wish.
tblade says
Is this true?
I thought that Prop 8 will not be ruled on until tomorrow (with dismissed without standing being most likely).
I’m confused.
tblade says
…I read online an erroneous report that while DOMA came today, but Hollingsworth (Prop 8) would come tomorrow, so I went offline for an hour.
Peter Porcupine says
If the states are in the marriage business, doesn’t that mean they can ban as well as affirm?
SCOTUSblog suggests that the decision means that only those two plaintiffs can get a license.
Christopher says
Neither decision mandates that states allow same-sex marriage, though Loving v. Virginia is a perfectly valid precedent to in fact go that far. The DOMA decision only says the federal government must call marriage what each respective state of residency calls marriage. My understaning of the prop 8 case is that it was subject to stricter scrutiny because it reversed a previously existing right. Of course SCOTUS didn’t rule on the merits anyway, dismissing on standing grounds.
AmberPaw says
As an outlier example, my great uncle Pinya and his partner, Hinda lived together until their death, operated a small business, and raised children without seeking to be “married” in the eyes of the state. To quote Pinya, “my life is none of the state’s business. Calling my relationship marriage – or not – makes no difference in my life.” And that is how Pinya and Hinda chose to live.
AmberPaw says
In many states, that relationship would have been handled as a “marriage” with all the financial and other regulations stemming from “marriage” by action of law without any involvement by a religion or a state office to do so. This then would have provided child support regulation if they had not lived “till death or beyond do us part” ignoring every aspect of government over their relationship.
Christopher says
…that would have to be addressed ad hoc. My understanding of the DOMA case before SCOTUS is that the plaintiff couple had tax obligations that they would not have had if they had been married. The “only a piece of paper” attitude works until something comes up. Then you realize you don’t have hospital visitation, death benefits, power to make the other’s medical decisions, etc. After all, it is all of these things, some 1100 in all, that motivate the LGBT community to so desperately want access to full marriage equality.
AmberPaw says
Mind you, the “well crafted” is easier said than done.
Peter Porcupine says
…in favor of a Partnership Registration bureau.
Marriage is a religious institution and should be run by its adherents. But the state’s only interest is in next of kin for legal purposes, etc.
The state should not marry people, but merely register partnership for all, regardless of gender, race, etc.
mike_cote says
Thank you JohnK, this may become my new favorite JPG.
centralmassdad says
It is a little odd that the government wound up in the marriage business in the first place. But, it did.
In essence, that is exactly what now exists, but with different words.
It isn’t unusual for the same word to have different meanings in different contexts. Years ago, my aunt remarried, by justice of the peace because she was divorced. The state considers her married; the Church considers her an adulteress. No horrors have befallen the world because of the semantic confusion.
If marriage is indeed a religious sacrament, surely it’s status thus depends more than on semantics.
SomervilleTom says
I think that if we weren’t so polarized, we might land on this answer — locally and nationally.
In my view, no government — local, state, for federal — has any legitimate interest in the religious aspects of who establishes a household with whom. It does have an interest in the various property and legal rights associated with such unions.
I get that this is a hot-button with the LGBT community. Since I am heterosexual, and therefore have no first-hand interest, I tend to defer to the collective wisdom of those who are most affected.
At the same time, it seems to me that the best answer is for whatever religious ceremony a couple chooses to have NO LEGAL IMPORT whatsoever, and to have the civil aspect be absolutely neutral with respect to the gender of the partners.
I think “marriage” (in the religious sense of the ceremony that happens in a Church or Synagogue) should have approximately the same legal import as Confirmation — None.
Christopher says
I have sometimes half-seriously suggested for those upset with “changing the definition of marriage” that if you have a religious ceremony it is a marriage (even if it is same-sex which some religions will of course do) and civil union if done by a JP (even for opposite-sex couples), but they would have equivalent legal status. I have no problem with the two birds, one stone aspect of allowing the religious officiant witnessing on behalf of the state for couples who so choose.
centralmassdad says
It seems clear to me that “civil unions” are essentially off the table now, since they wouldn’t qualify for the various federal benefits of “married” status.
Civil unions for everyone is how things work in Europe, I believe, and refers to the license from City Hall, rather than any other ceremony, religious or otherwise.
That ship has sailed in the US. People will have to just suffer under the horrors of semantic differences, as they have since the founding of the republic.
SomervilleTom says
Surely the various benefits of “married” status could be written into a newly-created federal “civil union” (and of course with existing marriages grandparented in).
As you say, this is how things work in Europe. My German wife reminds me, however, that European culture is not necessarily more friendly to the LGBT community — nor to women — as American (it’s a factor in why she is here).
I agree with you that “that ship has sailed”, sadly. I think everybody suffers as a result. The resulting hostility and acrimony poison our political process. Even more importantly, it sucks religion and religious belief into our governance, which to me is a grievous harm to everyone.
American government of 2013 is far more influenced by religious belief — especially extreme religious belief — than it was in, say, 1970. I think that is a negative change, and is a symptom of our collective decline.
centralmassdad says
I do know that in France, the religious ceremony and the legal status are entirely separate. A couple fills out their marriage license, or contract, in some government office, and then may have a wedding later if they so choose. They take their secularism seriously there. Yet, the process there has been marred by more violence than we have seen here, including riots last month.
mike_cote says
The government has no basis whatsoever in denying marriages to same-sex couples. This has been in the courts several times now and even the “so-called” experts cannot demonstrate why the government should deny marriage to two individuals. The Separate but Equal is neither Separate nor is it Equal. I have a major problem with two birds and one stone, and I am sick and tired of religions pretending to be “victims”. If the various religions have a problem with Americans exercising their rights as Americans, then they can go take a flying leap for all I care.
Christopher says
My argument was to point out the logical conclusion for those who insist that marriage has to have a religious aspect to be valid, you know, the ones who claim we are changing the definition, as if that hasn’t happened before anyway. In other words, they say we can’t have same-sex marriages because churches don’t want it, but my denomination does!
mike_cote says
Emphasis added by me. So would Civil Unions (being Separate but not Equal).
Christopher says
You and I agree on this. I was just pointing out what consistency would require for those hung up on the marriage=religious idea. No marriage is more or less worthy than another in my own opinion, whether conducted by a JP or a religious officiant.
Peter Porcupine says
…ALL couples, all partnerships, be they same or opposite gender, would become equal with the repeal of MGL Ch 25.
NOBODY would get a marriage from the government. BTW – did you know that MA is one of the FEW states that require a ‘celebrant’ to co-sign the marriage license? I found that out when I performed the wedding ceremony for my daughter. Most states, it’s parties, witnesses, and becomes legal when filed at town hall
This is important – it is the only way, save adoption, to legally change your next-of-kin and all the benefits that are part of the law as a result.
I remember talking to gay activists about this 15 years ago in the State House, and nobody could give me an answer as to why the loaded term ‘marriage’ had to be used. To me, treating same and opposite gender couples the same was more important.
mike_cote says
It applies only to Massachusetts and here we already have marriage equality, regardless of MGL 25. I have literally no tolerance anymore for any effort to split hairs on the definition of a word, which if it were sussessfully split, would simply lead to more discrimination. That is the answer to your question now and 15 years ago, saying that same-sex couples are something other than married is discrimination by definition. As the quote goes, “I neither desire nor require your approval for my existance.” I am an American, and I expect and demand to be treated as such.
Peter Porcupine says
Please remember, you are relying on the Goodrich decision for your equality and contained in the wording there is the observation that the Legislature or petition system can act at any time to impose ban. Now I do not think that will happen, and I have ALWAYS thought that if there were a vote, gay marriage would be affirmed.
But I thought then, and think now, that the state has no business here. It’s like my friend Dan Winslow changing the marriage license to Party A and Party B instead of Bride and Groom. It would be a neutral phrase, in keeping with the ONLY interest of the state which is purposes of taxation, property ownership, rights of survivorship, etc.
HR's Kevin says
It seems like the only thing you gain from refusing the term marriage to same-sex couples is to help religious bigots feel morally superior to the rest of us.
Furthermore, it’s not like there aren’t plenty of churches that DO recognize same-sex marriages. You seem to be implying that it is only some subset of conservative religions that own the term “marriage”.
HR's Kevin says
Changing MA law accomplishes nothing because it doesn’t say anything about Federal Law. If you want to redefine civil marriage using some other term you would essentially need a constitutional amendment to guarantee that “civil unions” would be entitled to the same rights as “marriage”.
The term “marriage” should be used because it is a civil term, because that is the term used in the laws of this country regardless of religion. If anyone thinks that their church somehow owns the terminology, they are just going to have to come to grips with reality,
Mark L. Bail says
behind the Partnership Registration bureau 15 years ago. Instead you all were playing the marriage equality boogie man for political points as late as 2004. It’s too late for the GOP to credibly feign reasonableness.
Case closed: another lost issue demagogued by the GOP.
Peter Porcupine says
.
Mark L. Bail says
Glad someone from there did.
HR's Kevin says
Marriage has been a civil rite long before the founding of this country. It has *never* been a strictly religious institution over the history of the US. Marriage has an old and well-established meaning in Civil Law.
The State doesn’t force any given church to perform marriages that go against their beliefs, nor does it recognize any marriage that is not licensed by the State. Religious and state marriage often overlap but are distinct and have been for centuries.
Suggesting that we abandon the term “marriage” for those of us who were not married in a religious ceremony solely because you feel threatened by marriages that aren’t what you are used to is insulting and bigoted.
Mark L. Bail says
aptly explain is the reason why we need marriage equality, Porcupine is right in that it would be better for the government to have no role in the union of two people–other than the bureaucratic record-keeping and enforcement of the laws against bigamy, etc. From the government’s point of view, all marriages should be civil unions. That wouldn’t prevent anyone from calling their union a marriage, be it a civil or religious ceremony. But that horse left the barn a long time ago and our society deciding the best way to deal with marriage equality is NOT to outlaw it.
And should someone married by the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Church of Satan be accorded more dignity than someone married by a JP?
Mr. Lynne says
“Marriage is a religious institution…”
Except it hasn’t been treated as a religious institution by the state in since, well, forever.
I’m not necessarily against getting the law disentangled from the word, but the entanglement is so deep that not only is this unlikely to be an efficient solution, it’s disingenuous to assert that it is exclusively (or even majorly) religious in its meaning.