Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito all filed dissenting opinions. Justice Clarence Thomas joined Scalia's dissent in whole and parts of Alito's opinion.

No surprise there. I'd bet all of those guys, especially Scalia, are seriously skeeved out by the idea of two guys doing it (but I also wouldn't be surprised if, given the opportunity to watch lesbian porn in a hotel room, all of them would take it.)

Good for Justice Kennedy, Bader Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan.

Here is my reaction, and it is guaranteed to offend and outrage every single person here. It is this:

Meh, whatever.

"Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone,"

He's the sworn agent of a foreign government. Deport him.

Dave,
"Meh, whatever."

We can't get there soon enough. This decision takes us quite a ways in that direction.

I imagine the elation will last until next April 15th, when all those newly federally recognized two earner gay couples find out that the tax man cometh.

Other than that, I am with Dave. This decision means far less than the gay rights activists think it does.

The other thing that hasn't been mentioned much is the fact they didn't strike down DOMA completely. They took out the provisions that said the Federal Government couldn't recognize a gay marriage. They didn't impose it on the states. So a gay couple married in Vermont and moving to Pennsylvania could still be taxed as if they were single, the state inheritance rights wouldn't apply, etc.

So expect a round two of this.

They're going to have to re-shoot "Deliverance":

"Yew got a real purty mouth."

*blush* Thank you. Are you ... married?

Sorry, Dave, you lose that bet. I have the same reaction.

The only thing I will say is that I object to Obama's decision not to defend DOMA. Judicial review is the prerogative only of the courts, not of the President. His and the AG's job is to defend the law whether he agrees with it or not.

(And yes, I'm aware that judicial review is not a constitutionally enumerated power of the courts. It was a power grab by he Supreme Court when rendering over Marbury v Madison. While the authority is not strictly constitutional, it is a logical extension of the court's powers. We're all entitled to due process, but if the court refuses to convict us for a crime that they consider unconstitutional, then what can be done about it?)

I think this result was the most conservative ruling possible. By overruling DOMA, the court required that the Federal government respect state laws on marriage. By not deciding on Prob 8 on the merits, the long term decision goes to the states. Very federalist.Though I think the decision to grant standing in one case (DOMA) and not the other (Prop 8) seems a bit convenient politically, even if the decisions were the right ones going forward.

I dont see why it was on 5th amendment grounds, the 5th amendment says people can be deprived of property without due process, DOMA was enacted using due process and it did not strip away anything an individual already owned. DOMA affected inheretiance and benefits from the fed as an employer, neither are something an individual owns, they are something gifted to them by a 3rd party

DOMA affected inheritance and benefits from the fed as an employer, neither are something an individual owns, they are something gifted to them by a 3rd party -- lujlp at June 27, 2013 2:01 AM

This is called the Takings Clause of the Fifth … nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

Inheritance is not generally questioned in marriage. If you are married you and your spouse are, by default, joint owners of the property. So if you die intestate your spouse gets the house, car, stocks, bonds, and everything else automatically without question and does not have to pay taxes on it. But under DOMA, the fed was refusing to recognize that Mr. & Mr. existed and would try to tax (take money) from the surviving spouse.

Prior to same sex marriage being recognized gay couples had to jump through many hoops to protect the surviving spouse and get them the money.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/timeline-of-obamas-evolving-on-same-sex-marriage/

Timeline of Obama’s ‘Evolving’ on Same-Sex Marriage

The defecation of too much money will change anybody's opinion. Sort of like the dems were for segregation before they were against it. Whatever needs to be done to stay in power.

Bill and Hill are now cheering the end of DOMA! Bill was pres when it became law!

But JimP the refusal to recognise such unions was accopmlished via the due process of the legislative act and executive approval of elected officials

Bill and Hill are now cheering the end of DOMA! Bill was pres when it became law!

Bill signed it into law.

In fact, in an interview in the June 1996 issue of The Advocate Clinton said, "I remain opposed to same-sex marriage. I believe marriage is an institution for the union of a man and a woman. This has been my long-standing position, and it is not being reviewed or reconsidered."

=========================

Interesting side note, DOMA was authored by Rep. Bob Barr in 1996. At that time, he was a Republican. In the 2008 election, he was the Libertarian Party presidential nominee.

"I remain opposed to same-sex marriage. I believe marriage is an institution for the union of a man and a woman. This has been my long-standing position, and it is not being reviewed or reconsidered."

"I did not have sex with that woman..."

But JimP the refusal to recognise such unions was accopmlished via the due process of the legislative act and executive approval of elected officials -- lujlp at June 27, 2013 9:00 AM

In the Ninth Circuit's case they ruled against the state of California's constitution on equal protection. Not the Federal Fifth or Fourteenth.

So the only thing on the line was whether Proposition 8 was in conflict with California Constitution Article 1 Section 4:

(4) Nothing in this subdivision supersedes or modifies any provision of this Constitution, including the guarantees that a person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or denied equal protection of the laws, as provided in Section 7.

So the Ninth actually got one right. They said the voters had passed an unconstitutional amendment with Prop 8.

So back to DOMA -- the lawsuit was made on the fact that the Takings clause was being violated, not the Equal Protection. So the fed needs to recognize what is deemed legal by the states at the fed level per the 16th.

So your argument the whole Fifth applies doesn't work. Look at more recent posts to get the rest of the discussion.

@JimP

Correct me if I am wrong but the DOMA case has nothing to do with the Prop 8 case. The Prop 8 case was decided on lack of standing. No 5th amendment issues in Prop 8 were even considered by the Supreme Court.

Correct me if I am wrong but the DOMA case has nothing to do with the Prop 8 case. The Prop 8 case was decided on lack of standing. No 5th amendment issues in Prop 8 were even considered by the Supreme Court. -- Isab at June 28, 2013 5:43 PM

You are right.

The Prop 8 case was based on California voters saying gay marriage should be illegal in California. The challenge was whether Prop 8 violated the California Constitution Article 1 Section 4 for equal protection.

The Ninth Circuit ruled it did violate the California equal protection rules and stopped the Prop 8 implementation. That is why it was then appealed by the state to SCOTUS. SCOTUS let the Ninth Circuit ruling stand.

The Fifth wasn't invoked in the Prop 8 case it was the CA Section 4 that was being contested.

In the DOMA case, totally separate, the suit was on the 5th Takings clause, not the 5th's Equal Protection clause.

Sorry if I caused any confusion.