Blog for the LGBT community, informative and amusing – A new vision for the world
(No Ratings Yet)
The U.S. Supreme Court is heading in the direction of gay marriage
(Blogmensgo, 05 July, 2013) On the occasion of two separate cases on 26 June 2013, theFederal Supreme Court of the United States took two decisions in favor of gay marriage supporters. In both cases, by five votes against four.
The first case concerned Section 3 of the 1996 federal law on marriage (Defense of Marriage Act), nicknamed Doma law. Judges of the Supreme Court found that the law violated the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution providing for the equal liberty people ( decision in PDF , 77 pages). The applicant, Edith Windsor, was legally married in Canada but had to pay at the death of his wife's inheritance exorbitant fees applicable to people without family ties.
This decision involves the obligation for the federal government to recognize marriages between same-sex considered legal in the states where they were made. Gay married couples and should therefore benefit from the 1100 federal laws and benefits granted to heterosexual married couples.
The decision of the nine wise do not apply only to New York, where the applicant resides, but in the dozen states where gay marriage is already legal.
The five favorable votes come from Anthony Kennedy (Editor's decision), Judge Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, more to the left than the four judges who voted against.
To the effective legalization of gay marriage in California
The second case was intended to prevent the invalidation of the 2008 referendum (Proposition 8), which had itself overturned gay marriage in California. Judges this time felt that they could not return to the invalidation Proposition 8 ( decision in PDF , 35 pages).
The forces arise and according to the judgment of the Supreme Court (page 5): the wise, gay antimariage wonder if the Federal Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution "prohibits the State of California to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman ", the wise, the gay promariage wonder if California can legally reverse a referendum (Proposition 8) the right that it had previously granted to couples homosexuals to marry.
The Supreme Court is well justified: "We have never had the opportunity to confirm interest in a group of individuals to defend the constitutionality of the state law when the representatives of the State chose not to [defend the constitutionality note]. We refuse to do so here for the first time. "
In this case, the five favorable votes emanate from John Roberts (Editor's decision) and judges Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan and Scalia.
Comment. Federal Supreme Court is to correct a double fault. Firstly , the fact that the federal government refused to recognize the legality of gay and lesbians marriage made in some States of the Union. Secondly , the fact that individuals have have thought based, off referendum to obstruct justice in a state by replacing the Crown.
Contrary to what one might think, it seems to me that the second decision (on Proposition 8) makes a conservative and not progressive will. It should be noted that it was supported by two notoriously conservative justices John Roberts and Antonin Scalia.
In addition, the sages ruled that case on form rather than substance: they voted on the argument or pro or anti. In other words, they kicked into touch.
This article has been translated from our French blog, to view the original, click here.