As I discussed on CNN, I was most struck by the more small minority of justices on the Court that view such laws as justified on morality grounds. That view is now argued almost exclusively by Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas.
Kennedy’s decision is a sweeping victory for the equal protection of couples regardless of gender. He writes:
By creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State, DOMAforces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect. By this dynamic DOMA undermines both the public and private significance of statesanctioned same-sex marriages; for it tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriagesare unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, see Lawrence, 539 U. S. 558, and whose relationship the Statehas sought to dignify. And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.
Scalia was equally passionate. Indeed, when Jake Tapper noted on the air with me that he hasn’t seen a dissenting opinion with this type of heated language, I almost added “since the last Scalia dissent.” Scalia was at his signature best of venting his anger:
That is jaw-dropping. It is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’s Representatives in Congressand the Executive. It envisions a Supreme Court standing (or rather enthroned) at the apex of government, empowered to decide all constitutional questions, always and every- where “primary” in its role.
The Proposition 8 decision was a win by default for the couples on standing grounds. However, it effectively kills everything on the docket after the district court order. That leaves the state open again for gay marriages.
Here is the decision in Windsor: 12-307_g2bh
Here is the decision in Hollingsworth: 12-144_8ok0
Ted Williams, Ty Cobb, James Brown, Mick Jagger, Tommy Lee Jones, the list can go on forever of great people in different fields that were/are disliked to despised. But they were/are great. Some athletes were hated by opposing players, but liked by their teammates. Cobb was despised by all.
I had fairly frequent contact w/ Sir Georg Solti when he was conductor of the Chicago Symphony. He would stay in a suite @ The Drake when I was a house dick. EVERYONE said to stay away from him. He had a reputation of not only being hard on musicians, but also his personal staff. However, I saw him and his valet work together and he was a gent. He was always a gent w/ me, liked to hear tales of naughtiness in the hotel. It does appear many in the legal profession despise Nino as you state. However, he has a cordial relationship w/ his fellow justices and is reportedly good friends w/ Ginsburg and Breyer. Gene, I despise politics. A big part of politics is, “We like/hate this person” and you’re expected to chime in “yes, sir.” That’s not how I role. I make up my own mind about people. And, I like Nino. Much of what I see as being a problem for him personality wise is his being an only child. Keith Richards writes poignantly about that in his bio, I just finished. And being an only child is something a kid has no control over. But, to each their own. I was just struck how much more venom was released by MikeS than by others. It was noteworthy, but no big deal. I just like to try and understand shit.
Or you could back up your contentions with evidence, Ralph. I know it’s probably a novel idea for you, but you should try it some time.
Gene; Jeso. I guess I agree. I think Scalia is coming from his Italian background. Those guys are sequeyed. They post themselves here. Then there are the black guys, then the Irish. Blazing Saddles: Not The Irish. And a guy like Scalia is somewhat predictable. He is not a bigot but he is not for equal protection. Its because of his self notion of being a wop. that meant With Out Papers. But he is definitely restricted in his world views by his background. New York is much of it. Turdy turd and a turd. (33rd Street and 3rd Ave.). As a matter of fact too many of the Justices are from New York.
Robinh,
There’s a lot of truth in that. Scalia is pretty much openly and fairly described a fascist, as are Roberts and Ailto. Kennedy, who used to be all over the map, is rapidly joining their ranks by some of his opinions. Thomas? He just does whatever the other four (particularly Scalia) tells him to do. The “Gang of Five” is a real thing on SCOTUS and as each critical matter comes before them, they consistently advance their corporatist political agenda but occasionally throw a bone to civil libertarians to keep them from focusing on how badly the citizens of this country are getting screwed by an increasingly privatized corporate driven government and by corporations proper.
George said: “It is sad that my children and grandchildren will inherit a country of queers.”
Really? This blog has resorted (or has tolerated) to name calling as justification for advocating one’s opinion?
Rafflaw, although I have a great deal of knowledge and evidence to back up anything I say, I would suggest that you do some of your own research on the Internet. Unfortunately, now is not the best time to do that because if you search under the Roberts, Kagen, or Sotomajor and “gay” you will end up getting references to the latest SCOTUS case, rather than the evidence regarding their sexual preferences and predilections. Try it in a couple of weeks if you really want to know about them.
@ GENE H ISNT THAT THE POINT? to be inconsistent as to keep the people distracted to what is really going on with the country actually let me change that the world? on one hand they don’t approve of gay marriage. yet on the other they fund the very groups who are actively pushing for gay marriage rights. just like abortion. on one hand they push legislation that would make abortion illegal. while on the other they fight to NOT give out protection that is needed to protect couples from unwanted pregnancies. ALL THEY DO IS DOUBLE SPEAK and of course its fallen for every time. …
We have no money for education, housing, food, etc but plenty of money for specialized military weapons, bike lanes, consultants to tell the corporation how to build this and where. we have no jobs but are expected to pay taxes or go to jail. We are expected to obey the law but no longer even know what the laws truly are…
Alabama is going to entertain a legislative bill to deny the right to vote to gay married people. Holy Cow. This makes the other case just decided by the Supreme Court on the ‘Voting Rights Act quite relevant.
“Arrogant and ignorant” and “smug” are indeed valid observations based on nothing more than reading his inconsistent and often contradictory opinions. His practically bi-polar stance on Federalism, especially when he’s not getting what he wants politically, often sound arrogant and ignorant. When he’s getting what he want? Like destroying the original intent he so often argues for (all the while proclaiming original intent) like the tortured logic of his concurrence in Citizens United. It not only comes off as smug, but it’s a logical contortionist act that a circus would be proud to have and woefully ignorant of the plain language of the Constitution as it applies to natural persons, not legal fictions. The Founders – aware of the corporate form and its very limited legal personality and what it was for as a legal tool – could have included corporations specifically as “people” but didn’t. “Lack of self awareness”? Could be pure supposition, but it isn’t implausible. Personally, I think he knows exactly what he’s doing and that makes him all the more vile as a jurist.
Scalia isn’t a nice guy or a good jurist. He’s not a consistent or a principle based legal reasoner. He’s blatantly swayed by his personal politics if they conflict with established legal doctrine and precedent. You may like him, but you might want to be prepared to be in the minority on that matter on all but the most right wing blogs, nick. Of all the Justices, he seems to be the most universally disliked in the profession, but it’s more for his inconsistent work which often ignores established principle in favor of his personal politics than his sterling (lack) of personality. A good jurist would never put personal politics above principle, precedent and well established doctrine.
Bron, rafflaw, who is a good tempered, genuinely nice guy, that I’ve come to like, said it was “scandalous.” I think I know where he’s coming from, that being it would be front page news. But, I also believe raf and I would agree that the IRS, NSA, AP, stuff is scandalous. Gay justices would just be big time news. Except, maybe in the case of Roberts, who voted w/ the minority on DOMA. More hypocritical than scandalous in my book, but 6 of one, half dozen…
George:
how about a country that just lets people be who they are and leaves them alone to live their lives as they think best for them? How about leaving your children and grandchildren a free country? Gay marriage is a pimple on an elephants a$$ compared to the real problems facing our country.
If gays want to have an acknowlegded union, what is the big deal? The IRS targeting citizens, NSA spying, expanding government, high taxation, endless war, government takeover of medicine, those are real problems.
You are being as PC as what you dont like.
MikeS, Everyone gave pretty even handed takes on Nino when I asked. You seem to have real issues w/ him. “Arrogant and ignorant,” “smug,” “lack of self awareness.” I’ll refrain from making a painfully obvious observation, and just say, “Keep your sunny side up..up!” You did leave out “racist” this time. Did you just forget to write it, or have you reconsidered that scandalous accusation. I hope it’s the latter, but it’s probably the former. But, I’m always looking for that glass half full of milk.
Nick,
Thanks for reminding me. Scalia is a rabid racist.
It is sad that my children and grandchildren will inherit a country of queers. I am tired of political correctness. Lets call them what they are and stop putting a nice ring to it. Marriage from our inception has been one man and one woman and that is what we should continue to be. Man made laws can’t change what is normal. Man and woman are made physically to accommodate one another and that can’t change.
nick:
who said it was scandalous? Who are you protecting nick?
Bron, Stop hitting on my new friend. MikeS did some pimping yesterday and hooked us both up last night. We have a miniature golf date.
nick:
yeah, why would it be scandalous? I have a very good lesbian friend, she would be very hurt by some one saying it is scandalous to be gay. I am hurt for her.
Did Ralph Adamo say that?
Why would is be “scandalous” for anyone, a Supreme Court Justice, electrician, teacher, doctor, etc. to be gay?
Ralph,
Where are you citations to prove that there are three justices that are gay or bi-sexual? By your math, that leaves 6 justices that are straight. That is a really scandalous claim to make about anyone, let alone a Supreme Court Justice. So why didn’t SCOTUS uphold DOMA?
The SCOTUS has absolutely no compunction about throwing any law under the bus when it suits the purposes of big business and government. The SCOTUS has gutted the 1st and 4th amendments several times, for example. Remember my rule. If it’s the regular citizen vs. big government or big business, the regular citizen LOSES. ALWAYS!
I’ve already explained how big business PROFITS from these rulings.
Want more details?
This is all you need to know:
Cliff Asness–A quantitative financial theorist who founded a systematic trading hedge fund in his time at Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS), Asness currently runs his hedge fund in AQR Capital Management.
Asness joined forces with four other wealthy Republicans, providing a pivotal $1.5 million donation to the “Win More States Fund” of the New York-based Freedom to Marry. The five wealthy libertarian Republicans are considered to be the major financiers of the successful effort to legalize same-sex marriage in New York state.
Jeff Bezos–As Benzinga reported in our list of Top Libertarian CEOs in Business Today, the Amazon (NASDAQ: AMZN) CEO made his biggest splash in activism to-date with a record $2.5 million contribution to defend Washington state’s same-sex marriage law in 2012.
Steven Cohen–A billionaire Republican and former federal prosecutor who served as New York governor Andrew Cuomo’s right-hand man, The New York Times credits Cohen with “direct[ing] the administration’s effort to legalize same-sex marriage.”
Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer–In 2012, the diehard progressive Gates and his fellow Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT) co-founder Steve Ballmer joined forces to defend same-sex marriage in Washington, contributing $100,000 each.
Gates would up the ante, providing an additional $500,000 to Washington United for Marriage in 2012 with his wife Melinda .
David Geffen–The openly gay media mogul and billionaire David Geffen has contributed $1.5 million to support gay marriage efforts in California. Outside of several record companies, Geffen was one of three founders of DreamWorks Studios, now owned by Viacom (NASDAQ: VIAB).
Tim Gill–Colorado software millionaire Tim Gill founded Quark Inc., in 2004. An extremely dedicated activist, Gill committed $10 million in support of LGBT issues in 2006 alone, and in 2010, raised $800,000 for a pro-LGBT organization he founded. More recently, Gill put down $25,000 to defeat local Colorado candidates who opposed same-sex marriage.
Peter Lewis–The chairman of insurance giant Progressive (NYSE: PGR) is a diehard liberal donor who also happens to have a son that is homosexual. For years, he’s donated millions to support the same-sex marriage cause.
Daniel Loeb–Loeb is a Yahoo! (NASDAQ: YHOO) investor who now runs Third Point LLC, a New York-based hedge fund with $11.6 billion in assets. Loeb joined Asness, Cohen and two other billionaire Republicans with liberal social views, posting a $1.5 million donation that helped fuel New York’s same-sex marriage victory in 2012.
John Morgridge–The billionaire chairman of Cisco Systems (NASDAQ: CSCO) — once CEO of the company — has been an active financier of gay marriage campaigns. In 2008, he helped back the movement against Proposition 8 in California.
Michael Moritz–Moritz is a big-time venture capitalist at Sequoia Capital, whose investments have included Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL), Oracle (NASDAQ: ORCL), Electronic Arts (NASDAQ: EA), LinkedIn (NYSE: LNKD) and many others. In 2008, he was included in a petition favoring marriage equality in California.
Pierre Omidyar–The founder of eBay (NASDAQ: EBAY), Omidyar has become a dedicated philanthropist, backing the “No on 8” movement and attaching his name to the petition urging California voters to support marriage equality. (Photo: Wikimedia Commons).
Larry Page and Sergey Brin–The Google (NASDAQ: GOOG) co-founders have been active supporters of same-sex marriage. In 2008, Bern and Page donated $100,000 and $40,000, respectively, to defeat Proposition 8.
Steven Roth–Conservative billionaire Steven Roth is a real estate developer and has a son that is homosexual. Together with his wife, the Roth family has donated a total of $33,600, supporting Republican New York state senators who backed same-sex marriage.
Eric Schmidt–Schmidt is the Executive Chairman at Google, serving as the tech giant’s CEO from 2001 to 2011. A major Obama supporter, Schmidt attached his name to the “No on 8” petition featuring tech giants like eBay founder Pierre Omidyar and venture capitalist Michael Moritz.
Howard Schultz–The Starbucks (NASDAQ: SBUX) CEO made major headlines in the last few days for taking on a company shareholder who didn’t like Schultz’s public endorsement of same-sex marriage. The company, in an effort spearheaded by Schultz, defended Washington state’s same-sex marriage provisions in 2012.
Paul Singer–Like Roth, Singer also has a gay son. Despite his support of Mitt Romney in 2012, the head of Elliott Management Corporation — a hedge fund — joined four other Republican donors including Cliff Asness, contributing $1.5 million toward legalizing gay marriage in New York state.
Jeffrey Skoll–Skoll was once the president at eBay. He was also one of the bigger names who opposed Proposition 8 in California, which would have outlawed same-sex marriage.
Jon Stryker–The heir of Kalamazoo, Michigan-based Stryker Corporation (NYSE: SYK) founder Homer, Jon and his sister committed a combined $1.85 million in efforts to legalize same-sex marriage back in 2006. In 2010, Styker contributed $602,000 in support of LGBT rights and two years later, he gave $325,000 to defeat a Minnesota measure which would have made same-sex marriage illegal.
Peter Thiel–The founder of PayPal is an openly gay libertarian who has been active in causes to legalize same-sex marriage. Thiel also helped found GOProud, an organization representing conservative/libertarian gays, lesbians and their allies.
Jeffrey Yang and David Filo
Yahoo’s co-founders, Yang and Filo, joined Pierre Omidyar, Eric Schmidt and others in their backing of the “No on 8” movement that opposed California’s Proposition 8 back in 2008.
And so on, and so forth.
Are we getting the picture yet? I will not exasperate myself if you do not understand how big business benefits. If you don’t get it, you are hopelessly stunod, and there is little that I or anyone else can do to help jolt your degenerated, flacid brain tissues. Over and out.
Explain how an increase to salaries that are costs big business is currently avoiding by denying benefits to same sex couples works to businesses benefit? They are in effect going to paying higher salaries which means . . . spending more money on employees and their S.O.s.
The decision was 100% predictable because you’d have had to throw the 14th Amendment under the bus to rule otherwise.