DOMA and such

Hooray!  Blogging time!


Yesterday, SCOTUS issued its decision on section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (defining, for the purposes of federal law, marriage to be between one man and one woman).  I feel like most people who are impacted by this case only care about the results, or are in such a public position that they are almost required not to dissent.  Take George Takei, for example, who posted on his Facebook that he was happy DOMA was struck down 5-4.  Even if he doesn't agree with the case's results, because he is married to a man and in a public position, he's almost required to be happy.  Let's recap the events leading up to US v. Windsor so that you can understand why I believe that Takei (and many other people) should be unhappy.

1. Windsor's legally married wife passed away, leaving Windsor her entire estate.
2. Windsor paid nearly $400,000 in estate taxes to the federal government, because her marriage was not recognized as a result of DOMA.
3. Windsor challenged this in a district court.  The Attorney General did not defend the case, citing that the executive branch found DOMA to be unconstitutional.  The district court decided in favor of Windsor and ordered the United States to refund the taxes, plus interest.  The United States did not.
4. The BLAG (which was defending the case for the US) AND the justice department (which was not defending the case) both appealed to the 2nd circuit.  Again, the case was decided in favor of Windsor, and again, the United States refused to refund the taxes, even though they agreed with the ruling.
5. The solicitor general (representing the United States) petitioned for the case to be brought before the Supreme Court.  Keep in mind that the BLAG has been defending the United States and the Department of Justice has been instructed not to defend DOMA's constitutionality.

So what's my point?  People in high places wanted a case dealing with DOMA to come before the Supreme Court.  If Windsor had gotten her refund, this never would have gone to the court of appeals.  It never would even be considered before the Supreme Court.  This whole case was a charade.  It was artificially pushed onto the national stage, and the dissenting opinions note this.  This is not a "victory at any cost" situation, and I think that it should have been done right.

What do I mean?  I mean that this should be a 9-0 decision.  You cannot believe how angry I was when, listening to the oral arguments, Scalia asks Windsor's lawyers, "Do you find a federalism issue with [DOMA]," and the lawyer answers, "No" (paraphrasing).  If they had gotten into arguments (this is perhaps outside the purview of the case) on federalism, I really think that it would be easy to show that DOMA doesn't stand up.  It forces residents of the same state with the same marriage license to be treated differently under federal law.  It forces federal agents in that state to treat marriages differently.  I feel that should be a clear infringement of states' rights.

Let's look at the merits brought up in the majority opinion.  They argue that DOMA was enacted in animus, bringing up the House report on the bill.  To be sure, there are some legislators who did vote yes because of hateful and bigoted opinions, but the majority only argues that DOMA was enacted in animus.  Regardless of how the bill was enacted, the effects of the bill are demeaning and prejudiced.  In cases looking at the separation of church and state, a law can be found unconstitutional if either the motivation or the effects of the law promote a religious doctrine, and I assume the same would hold in equal protection.  Why didn't they present arguments for the effects?

I find it interesting that, yes, while I'm happy with the result of the case, I am angry at how it was reached.  In fact, were I sitting on the Supreme Court, I would have voted no.  There's no point to the court case.  There is no disagreement.  Everybody knows what the right thing is to do, so do it and don't ask for the Supreme Court's opinion.

Some will rejoice in today's decision, and some will despair at it; that is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so many.  But the Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat.  We owed both of them better.
-Justice Scalia

And therefore, I agree in part and dissent in part.