Supreme Court Upholds Gay Marriage

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright June 29, 2013
All Rights Reserved.                                      

              Delivering a knock-out blow to gay-bashers around the country, the U.S. Supreme ruled [5-4] to end provisions of the federal Defense of Marriage Act signed into law by former President Bill Clinton Sept. 21, 1996 that discriminated against married gay couples.  Writing for the majority, 77-year-old swing-voting Reagan appointee Anthony Kennedy settled for posterity the rights to gay couples to enjoy federal benefits when legally married.  Siding with his liberal colleagues, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer, Kennedy threw cold water on religious conservatives that sought to have the Bible supersede the U.S. Constitution.  At the end of the day, Kennedy sided with the growing numbers of State Supreme Courts ruling that gay rights are comparable to civil rights, preventing the federal government from discrimination.

                Sticking it to states’ rights conservatives, the Stanford and Harvard Law graduate Kennedy delivered ironclad logic in his majority ruling. “The avowed purpose and practical effect to the law [DOMA] here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma up all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the questioned authority of the States,” said Kennedy, slapping conservative naysayers arguing that gay marriage violates God’s law.  When Kennedy raises “a separate status,” he refers to the landmark 1954 ruling Brown v. Board of Education, preventing the federal government from creating “a separate but equal class” referring to racial discrimination in the schools.  Kennedy’s wording now equates gay rights and civil rights, agreeing with high courts around the country that have applied the Bill of Rights to protect gay rights.

             New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan and San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone denounced today’s ruling as against the American people.  “Today is a tragic day for marriage and out nation,” said the two Catholic prelates, speaking like elected representatives.  “The Supreme Court has dealt a profound injustice to the American people by striking down in part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.  The Court got it wrong,” showing how the Church as no regard for the Constitution’s separation clause.  While Dolan and Cordileone speak for the Church, they can’t speak for the public, outside their IRS tax-exempt religious institutions.  “What the Court has done will undermine the best interest of children and the best interests of the United States,” said Rep. Michele Bachmann, not explaining why gay marriage undermine children in stable gay relationships.

             Kennedy’s ruling, whether despised by conservatives or not, sets the law straight when it comes to the federal government.  DOMA “tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition,” said Kennedy, explaining the logic behind his ruling.  If Bachmann’s church wished to discriminate against same-sex couples, it’s entirely their right but only inside their IRS-tax-exempt religious institutions.  In the secular world, the federal government can no longer treat same-sex couples as second-class citizens.   “I’m very concerned.  This is the same kind of judicial activism that conservatives have arguing against for decades.  It’s legislating from the bench,” said 52-year-old Faith & Freedom Coalition director Ralf Reed.  Reed didn’t call the court “activist” when conservative-leaning Supreme Court Chief Justice ruled June 27, 2012 in favor of Obamacare.

             Conservatives can’t have both ways when it comes to judicial activism:  Only screaming “judicial activism” when they don’t like the rulings.  When the Supreme Court rules, they’re not, as Reed and other conservatives suggest, legislating from the bench.  They’re trying to uphold the Constitution when legislation and state ballot initiatives can’t pass Constitutional muster.  Kennedy was very clear and specific.  When Kennedy speaks about the “unquestioned authority of the State,” he’s challenging conservatives that insist upon states’ rights.  Today’s Supreme Court also dismissed a challenge to the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court ruling that upheld a lower court’s ruling that California’s Prop 8 [ban on same-sex marriage] was unconstitutional.  Refusing to rule on the constitutionality of Prop 8, the Supreme Court, in effect, reinstates same-sex marriage in California.

             Today’s Supreme Court rulings on gay marriage establish for posterity that sexual orientation has become equivalent to U.S. civil rights.  Kennedy’s language in his majority opinion specifically refers “to a separate status,” in effect ruling against domestic partnership laws that create a “separate but equal” class for same-sex married couples.  While conservatives condemn the court for “judicial activism,” “ruling by fiat” and “legislating from the bench,” the reality is that the High Court must rule on matters that run afoul with the U.S. Constitution.  Inside the religious community, they can pick-and-choose who qualifies for marriage in a given church.  Outside in the courts, Kennedy’s ruling says gays are entitled to the same legal benefits as their heterosexual friends.  Failing to rule on Prop 8, Kennedy left the door open for States to have the final say on same-sex marriage.

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news.  He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com.and author of Dodging the Bullet and Operation Charisma.