Predictions on this morning’s Supreme Court rulings on gay marriage

My predictions on the pending Supreme Court rulings this morning on gay marriage: The Court upholds both the California constitutional ban (which isn’t so much a ban as it does not prohibit civil unions, just referring to them as “marriage”) and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Of the two laws, DOMA is the one more constitutionally suspect, but the challenge to it attacks the wrong part of the law and has a weak case. This case is brought by a New York lesbian widow whose partner died in 2009 and she had to pay the Death Tax on the inheritance. The problem is, New York did not enact gay marriage until 2011, so right there this case should fail on standing alone (in fact, the Court could take this route and not even rule on the merits of the case.)

Had the challenge to DOMA been brought against the provision allowing states not to recognize gay marriages performed in other states, then DOMA would have to fail under the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit clause that compels states to respect the “public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.”

My solution? Enact the Flat Tax and eliminate the Death Tax and issues like the one behind the DOMA challenge go away for everyone.


14 thoughts on “Predictions on this morning’s Supreme Court rulings on gay marriage

  1. Wait a second — the Court essentially strikes down Prop 8 in California (remanding it to the lower court) because the party defending it lacked standing, but the woman who couldn’t have been legally recognized as married in NY didn’t lack standing? Idiots.

    1. New York recognized foreign marriages between same-sex couples before the state itself started performing them.

    2. Just saw that. Talk about putting the cart before the horse, but that’s the NY legislature, which isn’t exactly known for its brilliance.

  2. Never try to predict the Supremes. Since the New Deal rulings, they have thrown the Constitution out the window and just do whatever they damned well want.

  3. This court is insane. Where in the Constitution is marriage mentioned?
    Warren is right, they do whatever they damned well want with no regard for the Constitution.

  4. Zero for two. Impressive!

    Love the closing paragraph. Are you advocating an end to all of the marriage-related statutes? This is so confusing. Marriage is about God’s design. Marriage is about sex. Marriage is about children. Marriage is about taxes. Please pick one.

    1. I have repeatedly argued for the end of all marriage-related statues.

      The government should neither forbid any marriages, nor sanction any. Neither should it force any person or business to recognize any marriage.

      If Catholic Charities does not want to place children with homosexuals, that should be their choice. If a company does not want to provide benefits to same-sex “spouses,” that should be the choice of those who run that company. If a business does not want to extend benefits to their employees’ second or third wives (concurrent or consecutive), that should be the choice of those who run the business.

    2. I wouldn’t be surprised that if at some point states no longer recognize marriages, only civil unions, while marriage becomes solely a sacrament bestowed by religious institutions (with a corresponding civil union, just like today how even those being married by a religious institution must also acquire a marriage license.)

    3. If a business doesn’t want to hire “married” “heterosexuals,” good for them. If they don’t want to serve a burger to Newt Gingrich, hurray!

  5. Thought about a minor edit?

    “My solution? Enact the Flat Tax and eliminate the Death Tax and issues like the one behind the DOMA challenge go away for everyone.”

  6. If the PEOPLE do not have “standing” in Court, how can the People’s elected REPRESENTATIVE have standing?

Comments are closed.