The Opinion of the Court

Hello everyone,

I know what's done is done, and of course it's all for the better - more than I could have ever hoped - but I thought I would share with you some of my favourite parts of the official opinion of the Supreme Court, authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy.
I know not everyone wants to sit and study a massive legal document, but some of it is really quite important.

If you really want to, you can read the full opinion on the official Supreme Court website, here, otherwise please continue reading this entry, and I'll share the best parts with you!

When I read through the opinion, it makes me realise that when it comes down to it, those 5 justices cared. You tell from the language in which it's written.
I cannot thank them enough, and applaud their decision to chose their own mind and common sense over the pressure and backlash they would receive from their conservative peers, and the way-off-course Republicans.

The report was also extremely long. Other reports released last week ranged from just 8 pages, to 17, to in the 40s and 50s, but 77 is is really long.

From the outset, on page 2, section 2 (at the bottom), before we even get to the good bits, the opinion states,

"DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment."

Then there's a lengthy piece of text about what the State's rights are with regards to marriage. I won't bore you with the whole thing, but this is how that section is summed up, at the bottom of page 3,

"By seeking to injure the very class New York seeks to protect, DOMA violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government."

Which basically means DOMA is jeopardising the rights of marriage conferred on a couple by the State - a right only the State has.

And then this part is brilliant (page 4).

"It frustrates New York’s objective of eliminating inequality by writing inequality into the entire United States Code. 
DOMA’s principal effect is to identify and make unequal a subset of state-sanctioned marriages. It contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State, but not others, of both rights and responsibilities, creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State. It also forces 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."

And it goes on (I've edited some small parts out that were irrelevant or "boring".

"DOMA undermines both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages; for it tells those couples and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are 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, and whose relationship the State has 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.
Under DOMA, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways. DOMA touches many aspects of married and family life, from the mundane to the profound. It prevents same-sex married couples from obtaining government healthcare benefits they would otherwise receive."

The text is very long, and it talks more about the denial of benefits, the denial of the State's rights, and the inconsistency in the law.

The opinion goes on some more, so I won't post any more, but hopefully you get the idea.

I just thought it was important for people to see and understand at least part of how this all happened, and how DOMA was struck down.
It's a huge landmark in history, and we were part of it. It's good to have a grasp on some of it.

Dan.