It seemed time to check who’s commenting on today’s historic Supreme Court decision on gay marriage, and who isn’t.

  • I quoted Huckabee below telling us that “Jesus wept.”
  • Nothing from Sarah Palin.
  • Nothing from Sean Hannity.
  • John Boehner is “disappointed” in a rather weak statement for the GOP Speaker of the House.
  • RNC home page – nuttin honey: rnc-doma
  • The officially-designated hate group Family Research Council tries to claim victory. Heh. 'frc-doma
  • Another officially-designated hate group, American Family Association, flips out: AFA-flip-out

Huge news – immigration judge stops deportation of gay Colombian man because of Supreme Court striking down DOMA.

deportations-stopped-2 immigration-stopped


President Obama’s issues statement on Supreme Court striking down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and in essence making gay marriage legal again in California:

Office of the Press Secretary
June 26, 2013

Statement by the President on the Supreme Court Ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act

I applaud the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act. This was discrimination enshrined in law. It treated loving, committed gay and lesbian couples as a separate and lesser class of people. The Supreme Court has righted that wrong, and our country is better off for it. We are a people who declared that we are all created equal – and the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.

This ruling is a victory for couples who have long fought for equal treatment under the law; for children whose parents’ marriages will now be recognized, rightly, as legitimate; for families that, at long last, will get the respect and protection they deserve; and for friends and supporters who have wanted nothing more than to see their loved ones treated fairly and have worked hard to persuade their nation to change for the better.

So we welcome today’s decision, and I’ve directed the Attorney General to work with other members of my Cabinet to review all relevant federal statutes to ensure this decision, including its implications for Federal benefits and obligations, is implemented swiftly and smoothly.

On an issue as sensitive as this, knowing that Americans hold a wide range of views based on deeply held beliefs, maintaining our nation’s commitment to religious freedom is also vital. How religious institutions define and consecrate marriage has always been up to those institutions. Nothing about this decision – which applies only to civil marriages – changes that.

The laws of our land are catching up to the fundamental truth that millions of Americans hold in our hearts: when all Americans are treated as equal, no matter who they are or whom they love, we are all more free.


I had to share former GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee’s tweets about today’s Supreme Court decisions on Prop 8 and DOMA.  Priceless:


Jesus wept when you were born. Could you be a bigger drama queen?

Best response to Huckabee:



Here’s Edie Windsor’s statement – sadly the NewsHour is refusing to make the video embeddable, and Youtube is hiccuping yet again (that site just doesn’t work anymore).


And a big thank you to Ronald Reagan for appointing Justice Kennedy and giving us gay marriage (well, at least recognized at the federal level). Heh.

The video below is 18 of the most touching seconds ever seen on television.

Courtesy of MSNBC, here are two of the Prop 8 plaintiffs,  Jeff Zarillo and Paul Katami (speaking), outside the Supreme Court moments ago.  Paul propose to Jeff, on camera, in front of millions:

When can gays in California get married? From Lambda Legal’s Jon Davidson:

Same-sex couples will not be able to marry, in California, I believe, until after the Ninth Circuit lifts its stay of Judge Walker’s injunction. The Supreme Court’s decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry will not be final for 25 more days (until after the time for a petition for rehearing has expired), and, after that happens, the Supreme Court will issue its mandate (order) sending the case back to the Ninth Circuit, which then has to issue its mandate sending the case back to the District Court. I believe the state will only then be allowing same-sex couples to marry. I assume state officials will be sending clarification about all this soon.

And here’s Scotusblog’s take on whether they can marry in California:

“There will be much further discussion and analysis about how the decision in Perry affects other couples in California. For the time being, we will say this: the Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal challenging a final order from the trial court. It would appear, then, that the order will go into effect. And it appears that this final order purports to prohibit the Attorney General and the Governor from enforcing Prop. 8. There could well be new challenges to the scope of that order. But for the time being, the order appears to be in effect and to prevent enforcement of Proposition 8 statewide.”

Prop 8 plaintiffs take call from President Obama, aboard Air Force One, offering his congratulations. We shouldn’t forget that the President came around for us and helped immensely on this.  It didn’t hurt that he stopped defending DOMA, and it certainly didn’t hurt that he came out for marriage equality.  Yeah, it took a while. It often does on our issues with everyone. :)  But as someone once said, if we want people to support us, we shouldn’t criticize them once they do.


The moment DOMA plaintiff Edie Windsor got the news, and a photo of her on the phone with President Obama following her magnificent victory:

“Hello, who am I talking to?” Windsor said. “Oh, Barack Obama? I wanted to thank you. I think your coming out for us made such a difference throughout the country.”

“A third of Americans now live in a state where gay people share in the freedom to marry.” – Evan Wolfson

Supreme Court decides it can’t rule on Prop 8, didn’t have standing. That means, however, that Prop 8 is struck down, as the earlier court struck it down, and gay marriage is now legal again in California.

Prop 8 lawyer David Boies with two of the gay plaintiffs in the case.

Prop 8 lawyer David Boies with two of the gay plaintiffs in the case.

Chris Geidner’s profile of DOMA victor Edie Windsor.

And here’s the text of the Prop 8 decision:




From the end of Kennedy’s majority decision:

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.

CNN’s Tapper: “This is going to mean real things to real people.”

CNN’s Toobin: “DOMA is gone. This is a major, broadly written decision.”

CNN’s Jonathan Turley: “Breathtaking decision. Kennedy went way beyond where he had to go…. Kennedy goes out of his way to say this about the dignity of marriage.”

Supreme Court strikes down the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional.

Page 4 of hte Roberts dissent, talking about Prop 8: “We hold today that we lack jurisdiction to consider it in the particular context of Hollingsworth v. Perry.”

The Alito dissent: “Whether the [BLAG] has standing to address the petition is a much more difficult question.”

There is language suggesting that the Court will dismiss Prop 8 on standing.

Justice Scalia is reading from his dissent right now. The Court’s opinion both in explaining its jurisdiction and its decision “both spring from the same diseased root: an exalted notion of the role of this court in American democratic society.”

The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and 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.

There is a “careful consideration” standard: In determining whether a law is motivated by improper animus or purpose, discriminations of an unusual character especially require careful consideration. DOMA cannot survive under these principles.

“DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled ot recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty.”

“DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment.” – SCOTUSBLOG

Who sides where:

KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. ROBERTS, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion. SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS, J., joined, and in which ROBERTS, C. J., joined as to Part I. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS, J., joined as to Parts II and III.

Here’s the full opinion on DOMA:

Us v Windsor

We’ll be live-blogging the Supreme Court decisions on the DOMA and Prop 8 gay marriage cases as they come in in a few moments.  Judging by my Twitter feed, it’s quite the scene this morning at the Supreme Court.  Here are a few tweets:





Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

188 Responses to “DING DONG, THE WITCH IS DEAD”

  1. ComradeRutherford says:

    Bonzo Goes to Bitburg! The Ramones!!!

  2. How about the ridiculous notion to put the god on Mount Rushmore? I had a cartoon for that on, too, called “Mount Hushmore”. In 1985, I was a hostage of Reaganomics, so I had time to lampoon the Old Fool, especially after Bitburg!

  3. Moderator4 says:

    Not so recent, karmanot. You might be surprised at how much spam this site receives, that commenters never see. But we do. ;)

  4. Number Six says:

    Start with book 2 or later — the team of authors started out with book one trying to copy another series called “The Executioner”. It didn’t sell. By book 2 they’d decided they’d rater satirize it, and from then on (until one of them died), it was a hit.

  5. Naja pallida says:

    Thanks… I’m all for that kind of humor, will have to look up the books at the local used book store and see what’s up. :)

  6. ComradeRutherford says:

    I am just glad they didn’t replace FDR with Reagan on the dime… But if we ever have hyperinflation, we should put Reagan on the $1M bill, Bush I on the $1B bill, and Bush II on the $1T bill. Just to remind us why we have to have such huge bills…

  7. Indigo says:

    I’m disappointed for him, he’s really a very intelligent man. Sadly, he has a dark undertow of Opus Dei baggage dragging him down.

  8. Number Six says:

    Back in the 60s/70s there was a series of “guy” books written called “The Destroyer” series. Supposedly Kennedy set up an “outside the law” operation that used a martial arts master (Remo) to handle things that the law couldn’t. After a few issues it turned out that scaring politicians to make them do their job(s) took up most of Remo’s time. It was all very tongue in cheek, and a great hoot, if your mind ran that way. Eventually (1985) they made a campy movie called “Remo Williams”, but couldn’t get the balance of humor correct. Joel Grey had some fun in it though.

  9. Maybe Jesus wept over the ignorance of Hick-I-Be!

  10. Perhaps Uncle Clarence would not overturn a different “Defense of Racially Pure Marriage Act” and live in sin for the same reason!

  11. also known as Reaganomics

  12. Oh, yes, his cult is alive and well. As long as people worship him, he’s a god, the god of senility, the great god Pruneface. As Nietzsche would say, the only way to kill a god is to stop worshiping him. We are in the fourth decade of Reaganomics. Ending it would be a good start.

  13. Bill_Perdue says:

    The Democrats refused to pass it when they had the votes and now they’re blaming the other gang of bigots, as usual.

  14. ezpz says:


  15. ComradeRutherford says:

    Ah, no, Reagan could never be a god. He had no integrity…

  16. Sweetie says:

    A tuition waiver is generally taken by a spouse who isn’t working. They’re going to school full-time.

  17. karmanot says:

    Yep, the First Lady of Nigeria is a recent commenter to AB and BTW has such a deal for us.

  18. Naja pallida says:

    You’re going to have to elaborate on that one, I’m not catching the reference?

  19. Naja pallida says:

    Well, that’s a totally different issue, that you won’t get any argument from me over. It’s long past due that American corporations are required to pay their share, including the share they’ve been depriving the public of for a generation now.

  20. Number Six says:

    Well, other than the GOP, of course

  21. Number Six says:

    Well, there’s always Remo

  22. pappyvet says:

    Exactly ! But if we are talking about fairness and “gestures” perhaps GE could start coming across and the trillion plus in “Island money” could be brought home ,and taxed.
    We will gladly pay up for our future, and make the commitment.

  23. Moderator4 says:

    Thank you, nicho. He is marked as spam and is out of here. :)

  24. nicho says:

    Spammers have a new trick. They post their own spam — plus a paragraph they stole from someone else’s post to make it look like they’re posting something original.

  25. anilpetra says:

    As a gesture, you’re welcome to pay all the back taxes since the day you got married.

    Perhaps the courts should require it? After all, it was unconstitutional that you took the tax break.

  26. rcdcr says:

    That seems like a fair penalty to pay in exchange for being a legal family that anti-gay bigots can no longer demean and disadvantage through illegitimate civil law.

    Who do I make the check payable to?

  27. GAftly8524 says:

    мy coυѕιɴ ιѕ мαĸιɴɢ $51/нoυr oɴlιɴe. υɴeмployed ғor α coυple oғ yeαrѕ αɴd prevιoυѕ yeαr ѕнe ɢoт α $1З619cнecĸ wιтн oɴlιɴe joв ғor α coυple oғ dαyѕ. ѕee мore αт…­ ­ViewMore——————————————&#46qr&#46net/kkEj

    Surprisingly Harry Reid has lots
    of clout in Nevada. He tends to not utilize it very often. If he does
    believe in Gay rights issues then he needs to prove it by actions not
    just by words.

  28. nicho says:

    Yeah. If that’s the case, then the court has confused me by such statements as “DOMA is unconstitutional.” “The statute is unconstitutional.” “DOMA is unconstitutional.” It repeats this over and over.

    In some places the Ruling talks about Section 3 of DOMA, but when it talks about the constitutionality it doesn’t restrict itself to Section 3. It says quite plainly “DOMA is unconstitutional.”

  29. jomicur says:

    Thanks. I love having my birthday on June 27, the anniversary of the Stonewall Uprising. I flatter myself that every year millions of LGBT people around the world march in honor of my birthday. :) (For the record, though, as a disabled person I’ve already been on Medicare for a few years. And I know exactly what you mean about it being a lifesaver.)

  30. BeccaM says:

    Exactly. We’ll gladly take the responsibilities in exchange for the rights and privileges. It’s only fair.

  31. FLL says:

    My only disappointment is that Kennedy’s description of “careful consideration” as the level of scrutiny sounds very much like the “rational basis plus” that he used in Romer v. Evans. I hope that in a new case, the Court will go farther and adopt “intermediate scrutiny,” like they do with cases involving gender discrimination. That needs to be the Court’s homework assignment.

  32. lynchie says:

    Well we now know, thanks to Congressman Asshole (R bumbuck, Al) that male fetuses all masturbate. Guess he doesn’t think females diddle.

  33. Naja pallida says:

    Sadly, the only way such a thing could “force” him out is if he had a sense of shame. Which he has proven on multiple occasions he does not. He simply doesn’t care about the American people. Just his ideology.

  34. Naja pallida says:

    I would think most gay couples are more than happy to take the few inconveniences to get all the legal protections. Nobody ever thought that rights come for free.

  35. anilpetra says:

    Two working people?


  36. Naja pallida says:

    I’d just be happy with someone who took the Constitution seriously. Kennedy’s rulings seem to be based more on a toss of a coin than any kind of legal reasoning. Yesterday he took the voting rights of millions of Americans away, and today he gives federal rights to millions of gay couples. Thomas and Scalia can always be guaranteed to pick the most ideology-based right-wing opinion, with absolutely no sound legal reasoning whatsoever. It’s shameful, and completely unbecoming of a group of people who have so much influence over our society, potentially for generations to come.

  37. BeccaM says:

    True. But I ain’t sneezing at the fact my wife and I won’t face estate taxes, will be eligible for the married couple deduction, have reduced capital gains taxes if/when we sell our house, and we’ll each be eligible for Social Security survivor benefits.

    Plus assumed Power of Attorney in all matters, guardianship in the case of incapacitation, and much more.

  38. Sweetie says:

    Being an “unmarried” couple costs couples more in taxes/fees overall. For instance, at my university, the spousal tuition waiver is a taxed benefit for “domestic partners” and not taxed for opposite-sex spouses.

  39. Bill_Perdue says:

    Ask Lambda Legal. “In two profoundly important rulings today, the U.S. Supreme Court declared Section 3 of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to be unconstitutional, and also found that the proponents of California’s discriminatory Proposition 8 lacked legal standing to appeal a lower court ruling striking down the amendment.”

  40. anilpetra says:

    We hereby convey upon our married gay friends the joys of higher tax brackets.

  41. karmanot says:

    laughing! :-)

  42. nicho says:

    For what it’s worth, I thought Clarence Thomas’s dissent was classic Thomas jurisprudential brilliance:

    “Yeah, what he said.”

  43. karmanot says:

    CNN is just FOX news in a more expensive suit and fresher Barbies.

  44. karmanot says:

    You are right: Want to overturn Roe vs Wade and eliminate abortion clinics in your state or destroy Planned Parenthood— go ahead. Fascism state by state is the long range plan.

  45. karmanot says:

    That touch of the romantic and idealist in you John is charming!

  46. karmanot says:

    Welcome to Medicare jomicur—-it saved my life in the nick of time! :-) Happy Birthday

  47. karmanot says:

    Expect nada from Obastard.

  48. BeccaM says:

    We’d prefer California, since we’re pretty sure there’d be no confusion that a marriage there supersedes the DP. But if there are any legal games from the PropH8’ers, Washington State is probably next on our list.

    In any case, we probably won’t be able to schedule anything for at least 3-4 weeks — hopefully by which time the details and conditions will become clearer.

  49. karmanot says:

    We are thinking about Vermont.

  50. karmanot says:

    Interesting development for Roberts, who had a chance to attain some historical greatness and instead has chosen a path of predictable conventionality. In a few decades after his death, no one will probably even remember his name.

  51. karmanot says:

    Live long and prosper Blue! :-)

  52. karmanot says:

    Marry out of state, with DOMA gone there is federal recognition.

  53. karmanot says:


  54. karmanot says:

    Already there: Prop 8

  55. karmanot says:

    “who knows where that will end up.” My guess is that it may ease abortion rights in red states, when the technology to determine if a fetus is gay evolves.

  56. nicho says:

    Still not taking a reporter’s word for it. I’d like to see the language in the ruling where it restricts it to Section 3. News agencies tend to parrot each other. Even John in another post says it’s only section 3, although he admits he hasn’t read the ruling. I read the ruling twice, and I’ve seen nothing where it restricts the unconstitutionality merely to section 3. I would appreciate it if someone could point me to the language in the ruling that says otherwise.

  57. karmanot says:

    Megyn Kelly dropped a strap! AND, broke a nail!

  58. nicho says:

    Can you point out where in the ruling it says that? I can’t find that.

  59. karmanot says:

    Huckabee can eat a pile of shit faster than a fly on Strawberry jam.

  60. karmanot says:

    An unfortunate accident?

  61. karmanot says:

    Maybe he’ll trip over his rosary one day and break his neck.

  62. Bill_Perdue says:

    “(Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a landmark victory for gay rights on Wednesday by forcing the federal government to recognize same-sex marriage in states where it is legal and paving the way for it in California, the most populous state. As expected, however, the court fell short of a broader ruling endorsing a fundamental right for gay people to marry, meaning that there will be no impact in the more than 30 states that do not recognize gay marriage. … The court struck down Section 3 of DOMA, which limited the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman for the purposes of federal benefits, as a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law.”

    Section one is just an introduction, section two states that “No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.”

    I wouldn’t trust the opinion of a mass murderer like Obama on any question. Recently, to get vote, he and the Clintons announced that they were opposed to section three.

  63. Bill_Perdue says:

    When the courts make decisions to expand civil rights and liberties it’s because of popular pressure to do so.

    When they make decisions to protect the rich it’s because they’re owned by them and part of the twin parties of political prostitutes, Democrats and Republicans.

    And you’re wrong about public support for voting rights. “There’s been relatively little polling specifically on the Voting Rights Act, but what there is shows a closely divided public. In a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, 49% of Americans said the act is necessary to ensure that blacks can vote, but 44% said it was not necessary. Blacks (75%) and Democrats (59%) were far more likely to say the act was still needed than whites (46%), independents (48%) or Republicans (36%).” http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/25/in-closely-watched-case-supreme-court-strikes-down-key-section-of-voting-rights-act/

  64. Naja pallida says:

    Harry Reid is probably just happy he didn’t have to actually lift a finger to give Democratic voters a big win that he can try to claim some credit for next election cycle.

  65. BeccaM says:

    We’re waiting to see what we should and need to do. I recall there was some talk about CA automatically converting DPs to marriages — if so, there might be paperwork involved. We just don’t know.

    We’ve no doubt though we’ll be talking to lawyers soon…and most of all, keeping an eye on the fallout on the state laws.

    BTW, we still have our Mayor Newsom-issued marriage certificate.

  66. ARP says:

    No, no it couldn’t. The constitution says how he gets removed and petitions are not a part of it, even if every single person in the country signed it. Congress can’t even kick him out unless he’s impeached. He would never leave on his own. In fact, he’s the judicial version of a troll, he’d stay on and do worse things if you tried to force him to retire.

  67. TomTO says:

    In our home we have what we call our “upgrade wall”. Domestic Partnership, Civil Union and Marriages Certificates all proudly displayed.

  68. nicho says:

    John, you know people. Can you get the definitive word on whether they struck down DOMA or only Section 3. I’m seeing both. It really is confusing — and does make a difference.

  69. BeccaM says:

    ‘Force’ how exactly? There’s no legal framework just because a justice is deemed to be unpopular. Not even a troll like Scalia.

  70. Indigo says:

    Most folks will probably dismiss our shared concern as merely a coincidence. Others will remark that there’s no such thing as coincidences. What bothers me about both rulings is that neither ruling is a solid affirmation of universal human rights. “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal . . . ” They did not uphold that as such in either case. And that bothers me.

  71. dula says:

    Wow, terrific link…all the info all in one place. Thanks!

  72. nicho says:

    Actually, here’s a more knowledgeable explanation than mine. I was speaking of a host of other benefits, but apparently, immigration is a go. Sorry for misleading you.


  73. JayRandal says:

    I hope I am wrong too but back to back rulings: one bad and one good gives me doubts about motivation of Justices. Hobbling Civil Rights undermines progress of Blacks. At same time easing restrictions against Gay marriage helps Equal Rights for Gays.

  74. BeccaM says:

    I’ve read it, too. The language is very broad.

  75. BeccaM says:

    I try not to become like my enemies.

  76. bbock says:

    It’s only half-dead. Section 2 is like Terry Schaivo, being fed with a tube.

  77. JayRandal says:

    Petitions if signed by multi-millions of Americans could force him out.

  78. Peter John says:

    Marital Valentine
    That I can spin
    inertia out of myself
    barely dressed or all
    dressed up in words
    and you can turn
    smiling or scowling
    back at me it’s me
    who still performs you
    though I can’t sing
    a note and when
    to marry you did
    lift your throat
    even to the blade
    of love I broke

  79. Sweetie says:

    Has he ever brought ENDA to a vote?

  80. nicho says:

    Which will never happen.

  81. Sweetie says:

    Or Ann Coulter’s “jokes”.

  82. nicho says:

    Well, states do have to recognize opposite-sex marriages performed in other states, even if the state in question wouldn’t allow it. For example, State A allows first cousins to marry and State B doesn’t. State B still has to recognize the validity of legal marriages performed in State A.

  83. Indigo says:

    I’m a little surprised by Roberts’ vote because, on a good day, he’s a strict constitutionalist. But it’s possible he decided that he needed to make up to his owners (maybe I should say “conservative constituency”) for his surprising vote in favor of Obamacare.

  84. FLL says:

    I agree with you that public pressure has done a lot of good. Sometimes, Supreme Court justices can and will ignore public pressure simply because they have lifetime appointments and don’t have to worry about being voted out of office. But that’s not always the case. I think your “public pressure” argument is a correct analysis of the Prop 8 ruling because Roberts (who I think leaned toward upholding Prop 8) voted to punt the issue, probably because he was worried about his legacy, which is a form of public pressure.

    Roberts didn’t seem to care about public pressure in the DOMA ruling, on the other hand, since he voted to uphold DOMA. It’s a mixed bag. Sometimes justices are influenced by public pressure, sometimes not. I think the public is overwhelmingly in favor of extending the Voting Rights Act, but that sure didn’t affect yesterday’s ruling.

  85. JayRandal says:

    Surprisingly Harry Reid has lots of clout in Nevada. He tends to not utilize it very often. If he does believe in Gay rights issues then he needs to prove it by actions not just by words.

  86. nicho says:

    The language is very broad. I’ve read it twice. I’m not lawyer, but I can’t see where the court restricted their decision to Section 3. They talked in the beginning about Section 3, but then switched to talking about “DOMA” in general. It seems to me that had they intended the ruling to be solely about one section, they would have been pretty precise about that in the ruling.

  87. BeccaM says:

    And besides which, a petition is pointless, given the only way Scalia can be removed involuntarily is through impeachment.

  88. Bingo. He’s either good on our issues or he’s not. And he is

  89. Indigo says:


  90. dula says:

    Hmmnnn thanks

  91. nicho says:

    He would love the attention and would love to just give us the finger — quite literally.

  92. Sweetie says:

    Whatever happened to ENDA?

  93. BeccaM says:

    I don’t see him as a friend for LGBT civil rights either.

  94. nicho says:

    I think we all have to wait for a lot of things. I’ve seen some places say the decision only affected Section 3, but a lot of other places — including the ruling itself, as well as the WaPo, Obama’s statement, etc. — speak only of DOMA in its entirely. I wouldn’t look to CBS as a legal authority on this.

  95. JayRandal says:

    Americans nationwide should sign petitions to force Justice Scalia to retire from Supreme Court. He is an outright homophobic bigot.

  96. Indigo says:

    That thought crossed my mind too. I hope we’re both wrong.

  97. BeccaM says:

    I’d say there are some. There’s not a religion on the planet with followers who are 100% lockstep on anything.






  98. Bill_Perdue says:

    Public pressure from the GLBT communities won the day, not Democrat judges or those who appointed them. .

    “In poll after poll taken over the past few months, at least 60% of Americans
    have agreed that the federal government should recognize same-sex marriages in those states that allow it…. The lack of a wider ruling on marriage at large
    likely saves the court from issuing a divisive opinion… While most Americans
    believe same-sex marriage should be legal, polling is unclear on whether they
    want the federal government to force it upon the states.”


  99. Sweetie says:

    Which is why he has done so much for ENDA.

    Get Equal’s ENDA Broken Promises Timeline


  100. nicho says:

    It’s complicated. It’s going to take some sorting out. Some federal benefits are connected to the state in which you were married. Some to the state in which you live. Some to anyone anywhere. So, expect some uncertainty.

  101. FLL says:

    I just took a look at the Prop 8 decision. Roberts (joined by Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan) voted to deny standing. Kennedy (joined by Thomas, Alito and Sotomayor) voted to grant standing. It looks like the only thing that the members of the first group have in common with each other is a wish to “punt.” It looks like the only thing that the members of the second group have in common with each other is a wish to rule on the merits of the case. I mean, come on! Scalia, Ginsburg and Breyer on the same page regarding substance?! Thomas and Sotomayor on the same page regarding substance?! That just doesn’t seem likely to me. It seems that the wish to punt or consider the merits is the only thing that those voting with each other have in common. I’m glad that Roberts decided to punt. The only other thing Roberts would possibly have done is uphold Prop 8 if the merits of the case had been considered, and Roberts probably thought that would have been bad for the legacy of the Court.

    I just don’t see Roberts as any friend of civil rights, particularly because he voted in favor of upholding DOMA. I truly wish Roberts were not on this court. Kennedy is the only real surprise, at least concerning Ronald Reagan’s intentions and expectations. I don’t think Roberts is any real surprise concerning George W. Bush’s intentions and expectations.

  102. JayRandal says:

    Huckabee the critter eater from Arkansas a certified lunatic homophobe. His rants are disgusting.

  103. Bill_Perdue says:

    I’ll wait.

  104. Sweetie says:

    Get Equal Got It Right With Sen. Harry Reid ENDA Protest

    “Last week, I attended the Net Roots conference in Las Vegas. This is a yearly event where bloggers and grassroots activists meet to network and discuss strategy for advancing progressive issues. Net Roots began with fireworks, as the gay organization Get Equal staged a major protest on the Las Vegas strip that stopped traffic.

    The demonstrators were demanding that hometown Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would prohibit firing people based on their sexual orientation. A total of twenty activists endured 106-degree heat to unfurl a large banner over a pedestrian walkway. Activists Robin McGehee and Lt. Dan Choi were among 7 people arrested during the protest.

    I support their advocacy and believe it brought much needed attention to a bill that seems to be languishing in the Senate. The pressure and media exposure created by Choi and Get Equal is crucial for several reasons.

    First, LGBT issues should not be considered radioactive. Politicians ought to be held accountable for their promises and proudly support equal rights at all times. With the American people overwhelmingly in support of ENDA, there is no excuse for timidity. The time to end discrimination in the workplace is today.

    Second, there will always be tough political battles and there seems to never be a convenient time for elected officials to take a stand. The LGBT community was told to wait its turn when Obama was elected because there were complicated issues – such as the economy and two wars. But now, defenders of the status quo still say we should hold off to avoid causing waves during the contentious midterm elections.

    If the Republicans win over one or both houses of Congress we will surely be told that nothing can be done because the Republicans are in charge. If the Democrats win, we might be asked to take one for the team because President Obama has a difficult reelection campaign in the near future. And if Obama wins, we may be informed that he does not have the power to act because he is a lame duck president?

    There will always be excuses why apprehensive leaders, who gladly take LGBT money and votes, should not act. Meanwhile, as the politicians dither and justify inaction, more gay people are fired from jobs every day. And, an even larger number of workers remain closeted, fearful of losing their careers and facing financial ruin in this dreadful economy.

    Third, there are those who claim that groups such as Get Equal should not be targeting “friends” of the LGBT community. I happen to agree with this logic, but believe one is only a true friend in the House or Senate if they are taking bold action to end discrimination. When Harry Reid moves ENDA through the Senate he will be amazed that protesters are no longer causing traffic jams in Las Vegas.

    Fourth, some critics say that we should take a go-slow approach and only end one form of state-sanctioned bigotry at a time. This crowd says, we should not push for ending Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and ENDA in the same year.

    This is nonsense and the notion of incremental action on LGBT issues is absurd. It is just as wrong to fire a person in the military, as it is to end a person’s career in the civilian workforce because he or she is gay. If a politician states anti-gay discrimination is morally repugnant, it is his or her obligation to seek out and end all forms of official bigotry at once.

    Indeed, contrary to conventional beltway wisdom, eliminating anti-gay discrimination on the same day, through one bill, would be simpler than the current plan of having several protracted fights.”

    — Wayne Besen in 2010

  105. JayRandal says:

    Yes hopefully some Mormons can think outside box of bigotry.

  106. nicho says:

    And Judge Walker in the 9th Circuit was a Reagan appointee too. Walker was the one who struck down Prop 8

  107. dula says:

    Does this ruling mean that Gay couples in states with Gay marriage have immigration rights for their spouses?

  108. BeccaM says:

    Trending story on dKos front page: Faux News has essentially ignored the rulings, in favor of obsessive coverage of the arrest of some football player I’ve never heard of.


  109. JayRandal says:

    Yes Idaho is like Georgia both states in denial of equal rights for Gays.

  110. nicho says:

    I’m pretty sure Harry doesn’t run Nevada.

  111. JayRandal says:

    If so John then why is Nevada a non Gay marriage state still? I have a hard time trusting Mormons hence a big reason why I opposed Mitt Romney.

  112. BeccaM says:

    Judge Vaughn Walker comes to mind…

  113. BlueIdaho says:

    My husband and I feel your pain here in Idaho. I suppose the best we can do is move to nearby Washington state if we want to take advantage of today’s ruling. I doubt I will live long enough to see marriage equality in this state.

  114. nicho says:

    The news media are notorious for getting things like this wrong. The court’s ruling says the DOMA, not Section Three of DOMA, is unconstitutional. It talks in some places specifically about Section Three, but it then moves into a discussion of DOMA in its entirety and says several times and in several different, but unequivocal ways, that DOMA — not just a section of it — is unconstitutional.

  115. Indigo says:

    Uh-huh. Then again . . . maybe . . . blah-blah-blah . . . yada-yada-yada. And finally it all gets kicked back to the States, one at a time. I’m just wool-gathering out loud here but what if the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments were brought before the Roberts Court for review and kicked back to the respective States?

  116. BeccaM says:

    One could make the same point for any Catholic judge or politician in favor of marriage equality rights. Just because the leaders of their religion are against it, this doesn’t mean by definition the individual is as well.

  117. Indigo says:

    I’m not sure I cAN name a “left-wing purist.” Whom did you have in mind?

  118. FLL says:

    My wish exactly.

  119. greenlibertarian says:



  120. FLL says:

    The justice who cast the swing vote in today’s ruling is Robert Bork, which is why DOMA was upheld. Oh, wait. The Democrats in the Senate filibustered and rejected Bork’s appointment. What did Reagan say after the Senate blocked him, I wonder?

    Ronald Reagan: “Oh, screw it. The won’t take a right-wing purist, so give them a mainstream conservative instead.”

    Do you honestly think that Reagan intended or expected anything like today’s ruling from his “mainstream conservative” appointment, Anthony Kennedy? Neither do I.

  121. BeccaM says:

    I still wish we’d see some “left-wing purists” on the SCOTUS bench, to offset the RW ones.

  122. cole3244 says:

    i don’t care if the love is between a woman and a rock its preferable to hate, the only emotion the religious right can depend on to energize them and their bigoted supporters.

  123. Monoceros Forth says:

    I assume the wailing and teeth-gnashing has started already over activist judges, special rights, violating the freedom of religion, and all that?

  124. They’re going to lose in court now.; The next supreme court case we’re going to win is why some gay couples can get fed benefits and others can’t.

  125. This is one of those days where people are reminded that the courts matter

  126. He’s been surprisingly good on gay issues

  127. samizdat says:

    Hey, Mike Hucsksterbee: Go Fuck Yourself!

  128. BeccaM says:

    And Roberts was the swing vote on denying standing for PropH8, vacating all the appeals and, in essence, upholding Judge Walker’s original ruling.

    It’s still my fervent wish that Scalia, Alito, and Silent Thomas all resign ASAP, though.

  129. Finn says:

    Hooray! Now the idiot and bigoted voters in my state can, after watching 100’s of millions of dollars of religious and conservative funded propaganda, vote on whether I get to have rights or not! What a relief!

  130. BeccaM says:

    Personally, from day one when the PropH8 proponents took their appeal to the 9th Circuit, I felt the decision to allow standing was flat out wrong. SCOTUS has ruled previously in matters similar to this, and not favorably to people looking to supplant the official gov’t role in judicial proceedings.

    In fact, I believe it was an Arizona case where the courts made it clear that what it takes is to put clear language in a law or proposition granting defendant rights to outside groups — boilerplate, essentially. And the PropH8 bigots opted not to do that because they wanted to hide their role in getting the proposition on the ballot and passed.

    So when Gov. Jerry Brown and the CA state att’y general decided to accept Judge Walker’s ruling, that should’ve been the end of it.

  131. nicho says:

    The justice who cast the swing vote was appointed by Reagan. So are you saying we should vote Republican?

  132. BeccaM says:

    We don’t know. Thing is, we live in New Mexico which has laws that could easily be interpreted to mean our state gov’t is required to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, and the only part of our state law that says male & female is the one that defines the marriage license application form.

    Our current state attorney general punted on re-opening his interpretation — but said he may revisit depending on the DOMA ruling.

    There’s sure to be a push for him to do so.

  133. Shouldn’t that statement be “Ich bin ein Schwuler”? :)

  134. SkippyFlipjack says:

    I love that Prop 8 was decided on the basis of standing. The Supreme Court basically said: “No, having gay people marry does not, in fact, affect or hurt your marriage in any way.”

  135. Wellllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll! As long as one of the gods isn’t Ronald Reagan!

  136. perljammer says:

    When you get back from CA, will the Fed Govt recognize your marriage if your home state doesn’t? Best wishes, and I hope you end up getting all the rights you deserve.

  137. BeccaM says:

    It’s okay, FLL.

  138. JayRandal says:

    Why is Sen. Harry Reid celebrating Supreme Court decision? As a Mormon he has actively opposed
    Gays and besides does Nevada allow Gay marriage? He needs to assure Gay marriage in his state before he says anything else.

  139. Badgerite says:

    Never let anyone tell you that your vote doesn’t matter. If you can’t see a difference between candidates, then you are probably not looking very hard.

  140. Bill_Perdue says:

    CBS says only section three – we’ll have to wait for more analysis.

  141. Bill_Perdue says:

    The only reality we need concern ourselves with the that both parties – Republicans and Democrats – are run by bigots, rebranded like Obama or not and by bigot panderers.

    The GLBT mass movement and world opinion compelled this decision just as the Black mass movement compelled Brown v. Board of Education almost 60 years ago.

  142. nicho says:

    A couple of executive orders could do that. If only we had a fierce advocate in the White House.

  143. nicho says:

    I don’t know. I just read the opinion — quickly, I admit — and it says quite unequivocally “DOMA is unconstitutional.” It doesn’t limit that to one section. In fact, it says it more than once.

  144. JayRandal says:

    My former partner lives in San Francisco so he can marry somebody else now
    in California. Ironic that I am the one who wanted to marry him but he believes
    in promiscuity with other men. Not being bitter about it but very ironic outcome.

  145. FLL says:

    Yes, Reagan must have felt a little cornered and with fewer options after Bork was rejected. Agreed. My point is that if Reagan had gotten what he really wanted (Bork or someone of that caliber), we wouldn’t have today’s victory.

  146. FLL says:

    The handful of Republican state legislators in New York State and New Hampshire who voted for marriage equality have shown that the Republican Party in the Northeast has evolved just enough to occasionally support gay rights. I have often acknowledged that fact. However, that bit of enlightenment among state-level Republicans in the Northeast doesn’t seem to work for presidents or in the House of Representatives. When it does, I’ll acknowledge it. Until then, I’ll continue to acknowledge reality. As far as the Republican-appointed judges you mentioned, I’ll give them credit too. But please remember that judges don’t have to face Republican primaries, or any elections at all. Reviewing the vote count in a major Supreme Court case doesn’t look too silly after all.

  147. BeccaM says:

    Partly luck, and partly because so many objected to Reagan’s original choice before Kennedy: Robert Bork.

  148. JayRandal says:

    John I hope your opinion about it pans out, but at same time I smell a stench. Gays
    allowed to marry anywhere a good thing. At same time I doubt most states will ever allow Gays to marry. Also what happens to Gay couples who marry in CA and then move elsewhere? If Gay marriage only recognized in limited states it might mean no
    freedom to live in non Gay marriage states like Georgia as married couple.

  149. FLL says:

    Having read your comments yesterday, I could tell that you were nervous and fearful. The ruling was a good one, but just for balance, I gave you a scary, fearful thought in my comment above. What would people do without me to add a ray of sunshine to their day?

  150. Bill_Perdue says:

    The courts in California and Massachusetts that validated or granted marriage equality were Republican controlled courts. So much for the silly theory that Democrats are better than Republican or that the courts are not amenable to pressure from the GLBT mass movement.

  151. Bill_Perdue says:

    Section three only and they punted on prop 8.

  152. I think it’s a pretty significant opinion from what people are saying. Seems the language is quite broad. STill need time to read it, since I’ve been writing the whole time, but this could have a huge impact in other court cases.

  153. lynchie says:

    If i understand this correctly they punted to the states and in red states who knows where that will end up. I never thought i would live to see the day when the legitimacy of a gay marriage would be sanctioned. We have so many other problems in this country the constant attacking of women, minorities, voting rights and the gay community shows how little we have grown as a country. Religion and the fear change that the right wing push daily really makes this a country I am not proud of. A high five to all who can freely marry whomever they love and cherish and a kick in the groinal area to the right/religious groups who oppose this.

  154. JayRandal says:

    Justices allied with GOP in my opinion are trying to drive a wedge between Blacks and Gays now.
    Be aware if you all praise Supreme Court today you could enrage Blacks in doing it. Worst outcome
    would be for Gays and Blacks to become enemies thus helping GOP to elect more bigots to Congress.

  155. nicho says:

    I’m confused. Everything I read says they “overturned DOMA.” Did they do that or only one part of it?

  156. Bill_Perdue says:

    The are still some 40 or so states with DOMAs to go. We can use Section 2 based on Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, as the “Full Faith and Credit Clause” but what’s really needed is a federal law or amendment striking down state DOMA’s.

    That won’t happen as long as Democrats and Republicans control Congress.

  157. BeccaM says:

    Also, we’ll now have the legal battles to make the feds recognize the rights of same-sex couples who marry legally in one state, but live in another.

    Most of the accounts I’ve read have indicated that, for example, if Edie Windsor did not live in NY but, say, in AL, she’d be out of luck on the IRS estate tax rules.

    Gonna be a bit of a mess for a while here.

  158. JayRandal says:

    Yesterday everybody on here attacking Supreme Court as bigots against Blacks. Now today praising
    Justices for throwing a bone to Gays? Basically Justices have undermined Civil Rights for Blacks and
    given token right for Gays to marry in a few progressive states. Majority of states controlled by GOP
    Governors intend to never allow Gays to marry like for my state of Georgia. Myself and other Gays in Georgia denied our rights while Gays in a few states like California are celebrating.

  159. Butch1 says:

    Congratulations to all of us!

  160. FLL says:

    I’m well aware that rubbing salt in the wound will not make me the most popular commenter on this blog and will earn me many down-votes, but rub salt in the wound I must. In the vote count below, I have cast subtlety aside and put the names of the presidents who appointed each justice in boldface.

    Scalia (Reagan ’86)———-voted to uphold DOMA
    Thomas (Bush Sr. ’91)——-voted to uphold DOMA
    Alito (Bush Jr. ’06)————voted to uphold DOMA
    Roberts (Bush Jr. ’05)——–voted to uphold DOMA

    Kennedy (Reagan ’88)——-voted to overturn DOMA

    Kagan (Obama ’10)———-voted to overturn DOMA
    Sotomayor (Obama ’09)—–voted to overturn DOMA
    Breyer (Clinton ’94)———-voted to overturn DOMA
    Ginsburg (Clinton ’93)——-voted to verturn DOMA

    Now I ask you, gentle reader, to what do we owe this particular 5-4 victory? Luck. Blind luck. I say this because history will record Ronald Reagan as having been the president who willfully ignored the AIDS epidemic as it was killing Americans en masse. Reportedly, Reagan even laughed at an AIDS joke. Clearly, if Reagan had known that Anthony Kennedy would turn out to be a surprising, unexpected supporter of civil rights for gay people, he would certainly have chosen someone else. And now, one more time, to what do we owe today’s victory? The sheer luck involved in Reagan having unintentionally appointed a justice that would rule opposite to the way Reagan would have wanted. Sheer blind luck. Pretty scare, gentle reader.

  161. Ich bin ein gayer :)

  162. They were gambling.But it was a very dangerous gamble.

  163. Yes, but I suspect the language will be terribly damaging to state DOMAs in court.