From blogger Greg Sargent in the Washington Post: I grew up in the far West Village of New York City, near the site of the Stonewall Inn riots that launched the modern gay rights movement, and witnessed a good deal of anti-gay bigotry in the raw throughout my childhood. So (the) Supreme Court decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional has personal meaning for me.
What’s particularly striking, in light of the decades of struggle that have unfolded since the early 1970s — the long dark period in the closet, the underground gay clubs that were subsequently padlocked amid the AIDS crisis, the shameful refusal of public officials to acknowledge that crisis — is the ringing language of equality in the SCOTUS decision.
It is unequivocal in declaring DOMA (which denies federal benefits to same sex couples legally married in states) in violation of the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection and due process, and in striking down DOMA as a deliberate effort to impose inequality on a selected class of American citizens.
What happened today is that a whole new legal framework has been created within which state level battles over marriage equality will now unfold. It’s not an overstatement to say that the language in (the) decision may help put state laws banning gay marriage on the path to extinction around the country.
‘A huge and gratifying victory’
From the New York Times editorial board: Two Supreme Court rulings involving same-sex marriage were a huge and gratifying victory in the long struggle to end government-sanctioned discrimination against gay and lesbian Americans. It is sad, this deep into the national conversation about equal rights, that five justices were not willing to recognize a constitutional right for all couples to marry, regardless of the state where they live or their genders. But the momentum for marriage equality seems unstoppable and such a breakthrough will eventually come. …
However, as many observers predicted, the Roberts Court failed to deliver the larger verdict that the Constitution calls for in its equal protection clause — a broad ruling establishing a nationwide right of same-sex couples to wed. The Court missed a historic chance to correct a longstanding injustice and left gay people in much of the country relegated to an inferior status that a growing majority of Americans knows is wrong. …
But there are miles yet to travel on this civil rights journey. The new marriage rulings leave behind an unsupportable state-by-state patchwork that threatens valid marriages when state lines are crossed. Cases already in the pipeline could give the Supreme Court another chance to fully confront the harm to real people’s lives and establish marriage equality nationwide. Soon, we hope.
‘If you redefine marriage, you open a huge door’
From national evangelical pastor and writer Rick McDaniel: This debate is not about marriage equality, though the reframing of the argument is a brilliant move by gay marriage supporters. It is semantics more than substance. If the issue is simply equal rights then the debate would be centered on civil unions and not gay marriage. Homosexuals should have all the civil rights that allow them to be in a relationship with another person. They should not be discriminated against and should be treated equally as other groups. But that is not the same thing as being married. Redefining marriage from its historic, traditional understanding is a wholly different enterprise. Saying it is unfair that gays cannot marry is just the same as saying it is unfair that one does not have a higher IQ to be a scientist or lacks exceptional height to be an NBA player. These are God-given realities not open to human alteration.
Just because one does not support gay marriage does not make him homophobic. Such a message is completely false and highly offensive to people of faith. The idea that you hate homosexuals because you disagree with gay marriage is the kind of lazy thinking that infects this country in so many public debates. Only someone with limited, linear thinking comes to such a simplistic conclusion. … To say that Pope Francis, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen and many other faith leaders are homophobic is simply absurd.
If you redefine marriage, you open a huge door that can lead to other types of marriage. … For instance, if a couple is infertile and they want to have children, why not let a spouse marry another spouse who is fertile? Or what about the bi-sexual who wants both a male and female spouse? Is it not fair to give marriage equality to them as well? Once you destroy traditional marriage, you allow for a variety of other marriages. If this seems implausible, the idea of gay marriage was equally far- fetched just 30 years ago.
Only a marriage between a man and a woman can create a child. No same sex relationship can ever procreate. In order to have children, something must be done that is unnatural. If there are then children, how are those children raised? Masculinity can never bestow femininity and vice-versa. … This is why it takes both a mom and dad to raise a healthy, well- adjusted child. Government recognizes marriage because it benefits society to meet the needs of children.
Our leaders should create policies supporting marriage not redefining it. Promoting traditional marriage does not discriminate against anyone. You can love whomever you choose but that does not mean demanding your relationship be recognized as a marriage. …
Ruling ‘rewards corrupt politicians’
From National Organization for Marriage president Brian Brown: "In a miscarriage of justice, the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to consider the decision of a single federal court judge to overturn the perfectly legal action of over 7 million California voters who passed Proposition 8, defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The Supreme Court's holding that proponents of an initiative had no legal right to appeal ignores California law and rewards corrupt politicians for abandoning their duty to defend traditional marriage laws. It's imperative that Congress continue to preserve the right of states to protect true marriage and refuse to recognize faux marriages performed in other states or countries."
‘Children need a mom and a dad’
From Family Research Council president Tony Perkins: "What is inevitable is that the male and female relationship will continue to be uniquely important to the future of society. The reality is that society needs children, and children need a mom and a dad. We will continue to work to restore and promote a healthy marriage culture, which will maximize the chances of a child being raised by a married mother and father."
‘We mourn for America’s future’
From Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association: "We are deeply saddened by (the) decision to not only allow but encourage same-sex marriage in our country — a country that was founded on biblical principles. We mourn for America's future, but we are not without hope. Our next line of defense is to vigorously protect our religious liberty. The homosexual lobby and agenda is running rampant across America, and is even pervading our elementary schools. The judicial activism that is being demonstrated is deplorable as the Supreme Court is imposing its will on the people and legislatures of the 50 states in our United States of America. Now, we must warn against the coming persecution, the barrage of criticism and the aggressive action of the homosexual agenda to indoctrinate and change the thoughts and convictions of Americans to accept this lifestyle as the new normal. …"
‘This will become debate on civil liberties’
From the conservative site Red State, and blogger Dana Loesch: The Supreme Court's ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act is a loss for big government, not for marriage. Let's revisit.
The year was 1996 and I was a young college frosh, Democrat, and progressive activist. Democrats campaigned on DOMA. Clinton, the new Kennedy-of-sorts, was a fervent supporter, writing prior to the bill’s signing: “I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position.” Democrats, led by Clinton, also supported Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
The Log Cabin Republican group led the fight against both DADT and DOMA.
… This will now become a debate on civil liberties. If you don’t believe me, read on in the story where I list examples of how it’s already happening. You don’t see protests for those people of faith being discriminated against for their Christian beliefs.
Big government is a symptom of apathetic people. If big government is needed to define marriage, then the people who make up the church, and I say this as one of them, have not done their best to God to live and evangelize their faith. Where we fail, government intercedes.…
‘I want government out of my life’
From conservative commentator Glenn Beck: Government should not be involved in marriage at all. … There's no reason for it. I don't get the value of my marriage from the government, I get it from God. And if someone else gets it from Randy down the street, whatever. I want the government out of my bedroom, my garage, my kitchen, my living room, my office, my backyard, my school; I want the government out of my life.
The other thing is: I want the government out of my church. My church has a right to practice religion the way we see and understand God. I have a right of conscience. If you want to go find a church that marries a gay couple, that is totally fine … [but] my church does not do that, and it will fundamentally change what I believe is the eternal family … and I have a right to believe that, as long as I’m not trying to force you to do anything.
Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, honorary chairman of the Our America Initiative and the 2012 Libertarian presidential nominee: If the federal government is going to be in the marriage business, which it is, the Court's ruling on DOMA is simply fair. Granting the federal benefits of marriage to some, while denying them to others, is discrimination, pure and simple, and it is gratifying that the Court has recognized that fact.
Now, it is up to individual states to decide for themselves whether the rights, privileges and responsibilities of marriage are available to all couples, straight or gay, without the federal government imposing its will. The Our America Initiative has already partnered with organizations in Arizona and Florida to launch ballot initiatives to allow voters to make that decision, and I am confident that other states will follow.
At the same time, it must be recognized that the religious freedoms of Americans must be protected as well. The government has no business dictating to churches and other faith organizations how they deal with the rites of marriage within their own congregations. Our proposed amendments in Arizona and Florida protect those religious freedoms.
Quick takes, via blaze.com and the Huffington Post:
From singer Melissa Etheridge: I look forward to exercising my American civil liberties … and getting fully, completely and legally married this year to my true love of over three years, Linda Wallem.
From entertainer Ellen DeGeneres: It's a supremely wonderful day for equality. Prop 8 is over, and so is DOMA. Congratulations, everyone. And I mean everyone.
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio: While I am obviously disappointed in the ruling, it is always critical that we protect our system of checks and balances. A robust national debate over marriage will continue in the public square, and it is my hope that states will define marriage as the union between one man and one woman.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.: The Supreme Court bent the arc of history once again toward justice. The court placed itself on the right side of history by discarding Section 3 of the defenseless Defense of Marriage Act and by allowing marriage equality for all families in California. The highest court in the land reaffirmed the promise inscribed into its walls: "equal justice under law."
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops: Today is a tragic day for marriage and our nation. The Supreme Court has dealt a profound injustice to the American people by striking down in part the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The Court got it wrong. The federal government ought to respect the truth that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, even where states fail to do so. The preservation of liberty and justice requires that all laws, federal and state, respect the truth, including the truth about marriage.
President Barack Obama: 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.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., on Twitter: This is progress in the truest sense of the word. A great, historic day for equality!
Bill Clinton, on Twitter: Today's decisions are a great step forward for #MarriageEquality. Grateful to all who fought tirelessly for this day.
About the Author