FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Stunted Revolutions

by BINOY KAMPMARK

Inequality is something the United States does well.  Depending on a range of indicators – the provision of housing, income, balanced and stable infrastructure, the presence of the death penalty in many states – the motor of the free world is not as well oiled as some of its patriotic drummers claim.

When it comes to the battles over equality in the U.S. Supreme Court, the wait for great decisions has been long and sometimes disappointing. When judges are allowed room for a genuine well thought through activism, preference is given to dry legalism and obtuse reasoning.  The tip-toe effect is understandable for one reason: the justices have to masquerade as apolitical forces.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California’s Proposition 8 were always going to be key issues in a week filled with much activity on the bench.  Prefaces to many legal commentaries foretold greatness in the making.  The decision in the Windsor case striking down parts of DOMA and the Hollingsworth decision rejecting the lower court’s declaration that California’s Proposition 8 is unconstitutional – yielded no such thing.

Justice Scalia, unflappably conservative, decided in his dissenting judgment in the DOMA case that the court had “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.”  A bit rough on the rub there, though the justice does have one vital point: the court might have done better.

Proposition 8, defining marriage as a union between man and woman, might have been held unconstitutional as violating the equal protection clause.  The court might have chosen to veer carefully, limiting its decision to California. It might have also been brave and taken the high ground to apply it to all states.

The majority decision, authored by Chief Justice Roberts, did no such thing, preferring instead to focus on matters touching on standing.  Proponents of the law, it was argued, lacked sufficient legal standing to bring an appeal.  As a result, the lower court’s ruling in favour of the plaintiffs who had sought to overturn Prop 8 is restored.  The rest will be left to Californian officials as to how they interpret it, though the general view is that the return of same-sex marriages to the state will be the main result.

As for DOMA’s constitutional status, hopes varied in terms of how it would stand or fall.  Those in favour of the act, a statute on the books since 1996, wished for various things; a traditional defence of marriage, or a declaration at very least that, even if it was unconstitutional, such things were best left to states.  The federal definition would be something else.

Instead, legal reasoning varied in the 5-4 ruling, though the majority judgment, authored by Justice Kennedy, insisted in somewhat stilted language that the statute was invalid for “treating those persons as living in [same-sex] marriages less respected than others”, being a “violation of the Fifth Amendment.”  The traditional definition effectively injured and disparaged the “personhood and dignity” of same-sex couples.

Simplicity can be a beautiful thing, but it simply wasn’t present here.  An essential feature of the decision is its lack of compulsion – the ruling does not compel any state to allow gay marriage.

Joel Meares, writing in The Guardian (Jun 27), showed a classic sentiment of legal misreading: “What the Doma ruling means: we’re free to feel normal about love.”  While the Meares case is heartfelt – wanting to live together with his partner, deemed “impossible” prior to the ruling – the description is one of outcome.

Certainly, outcomes do matter.  According to the Williams Institute, there are 114,000 same-sex couples who are legally married, with 650,000 same-sex couples living together in the United States.  The ruling on DOMA will allow more flexibility for single-sex couples to adjust their finances, take out a more equitable regime of health insurance, file joint tax returns and receive social security.

In states which recognise their unions, couples will be able to access some 1,000 federal benefits (New York Times, Jun 26).  What happens in those 37 states that do not recognise the status of single sex couples remains unclear, another reason why the victory for single-sex couples is not so much Pyrrhic as vague.

As Tara Siegel Bernard of the New York Times explains, “federal agencies generally defer to the states to determine a couple’s marital status.”  Brian Moulton, legal director at the Human Rights Campaign, puts the case powerfully that, “Unless the administration changes its practices and rules – and in a couple of areas, unless the law changes – then couples residing in a nonmarriage-equality state may not be recognised for some federal programs.”

What the decision potentially does is create a different tier of privileges among those in same-sex unions.  The law will continue to adjust the habit of its subjects; for one thing, travel will have to be undertaken to the 13 states or the District of Columbia to get married.  Then there is the testy issue about what happens when legally married couples move to states which do not recognise such a union.

The two decisions suggest a form of stunted judicial reasoning.  And opinions at the end of the day are not actions.  The legal declarations now made, it is up to the various government tiers in the United States to respond.  That is where the test of how viable the decisions are will rest.  One thing is at least clear and merry from the DOMA ruling: Edith Windsor, the 83-year-old widow who sought to claim an estate-tax refund after her partner’s death, will get her money back.

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

 

 

 

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

Weekend Edition
February 12-14, 2016
Andrew Levine
What Next in the War on Clintonism?
Jeffrey St. Clair
A Comedy of Terrors: When in Doubt, Bomb Syria
Ismael Hossein-Zadeh – Anthony A. Gabb
Financial Oligarchy vs. Feudal Aristocracy
Paul Street
When Plan A Meets Plan B: Talking Politics and Revolution with the Green Party’s Jill Stein
Rob Urie
The (Political) Season of Our Discontent
Pepe Escobar
It Takes a Greek to Save Europa
Gerald Sussman
Why Hillary Clinton Spells Democratic Party Defeat
Carol Norris
What Do Hillary’s Women Want? A Psychologist on the Clinton Campaign’s Women’s Club Strategy
Robert Fantina
The U.S. Election: Any Good News for Palestine?
Linda Pentz Gunter
Radioactive Handouts: the Nuclear Subsidies Buried Inside Obama’s “Clean” Energy Budget
Michael Welton
Lenin, Putin and Me
Manuel García, Jr.
Fire in the Hole: Bernie and the Cracks in the Neo-Liberal Lid
Thomas Stephens
The Flint River Lead Poisoning Catastrophe in Historical Perspective
David Rosen
When Trump Confronted a Transgender Beauty
Will Parrish
Cap and Clear-Cut
Victor Grossman
Coming Cutthroats and Parting Pirates
Ben Terrall
Raw Deals: Challenging the Sharing Economy
David Yearsley
Beyoncé’s Super Bowl Formation: Form-Fitting Uniforms of Revolution and Commerce
David Mattson
Divvying Up the Dead: Grizzly Bears in a Post-ESA World
Matthew Stevenson
Confessions of a Primary Insider
Jeff Mackler
Friedrichs v. U.S. Public Employee Unions
Franklin Lamb
Notes From Tehran: Trump, the Iranian Elections and the End of Sanctions
Pete Dolack
More Unemployment and Less Security
Christopher Brauchli
The Cruzifiction of Michael Wayne Haley
Bill Quigley
Law on the Margins: a Profile of Social Justice Lawyer Chaumtoli Huq
Uri Avnery
A Lady With a Smile
Katja Kipping
The Opposite of Transparency: What I Didn’t Read in the TIPP Reading Room
B. R. Gowani
Hellish Woman: ISIS’s Granny Endorses Hillary
Kent Paterson
The Futures of Whales and Humans in Mexico
James Heddle
Why the Current Nuclear Showdown in California Should Matter to You
Michael Howard
Hollywood’s Grotesque Animal Abuse
Steven Gorelick
Branding Tradition: a Bittersweet Tale of Capitalism at Work
Nozomi Hayase
Assange’s UN Victory and Redemption of the West
Patrick Bond
World Bank Punches South Africa’s Poor, by Ignoring the Rich
Mel Gurtov
Is US-Russia Engagement Still Possible?
Dan Bacher
Governor Jerry Brown Receives Cold, Dead Fish Award Four Years In A Row
Wolfgang Lieberknecht
Fighting and Protecting Refugees
Jennifer Matsui
Doglegs, An Unforgettable Film
Soud Sharabani
Israeli Myths: An Interview with Ramzy Baroud
Terry Simons
Bernie? Why Not?
Missy Comley Beattie
When Thoughtful People Think Illogically
Christy Rodgers
Everywhere is War: Luke Mogelson’s These Heroic, Happy Dead: Stories
Ron Jacobs
Springsteen: Rockin’ the House in Albany, NY
Barbara Nimri Aziz
“The Martian”: This Heroism is for Chinese Viewers Too
Charles R. Larson
No Brainers: When Hitler Took Cocaine and Lenin Lost His Brain
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail