What just happened re: DOMA

[Ms. Toad]

41. Here's a quick cut - dont' have time to pare it down

Here are snippets - starting around page 19

The State’s power in defining the marital relation is of central relevance in this case quite apart from principles of federalism. Here the State’s decision to give this class of persons the right to marry conferred upon them a dignity and status of immense import. When the State used its historic and essential authority to define the marital relation in this way, its role and its power in making the decision enhanced the recognition, dignity, and protection of the class in their own community. DOMA, because of its reach and extent, departs from this history and tradition of reliance on state law to define marriage. “‘{D}iscriminations of an unusual character especially suggest careful consideration to determine whether they are obnoxious to the constitutional provision.’ ” Romer v. Evans , 517 U. S. 620, 633 (1996) (quoting Louisville Gas & Elec. Co. v. Coleman , 277 U. S. 32, 37–38 (1928)).

The Federal Government uses this state-defined class for the opposite purpose—to impose restrictions and disabilities. That result requires this Court now to address whether the resulting injury and indignity is a deprivation of an essential part of the liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment. What the State of New York treats as alike the federal law deems unlike by a law designed to injure the same class the State seeks to protect.

. . .

The responsibility of the States for the regulation of domestic relations is an important indicator of the substantial societal impact the State’s classifications have in the daily lives and customs of its people. DOMA’s unusual deviation from the usual tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage here operates to deprive same-sex couples of the benefits and responsibilities that come with the federal recognition of their marriages.

. . .

DOMA’s principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal.

. . .

this dynamic 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 recognit
ion.

. . .

The class to which DOMA directs its restrictions and restraints are those persons who are joined in same-sex marriages made lawful by the State.

. . .

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,

And - unfortunately - that means those of us in marriages the State deems unlike - or has chosen not to protect - are not instantaneously granted recognition of our marriages. This decision, at least by the language of the decision merely says it was unconstitutional for the Federal Government via DOMA tot take away what the state has chosen to give.