Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
Support Our Annual Fund Drive! CounterPunch is entirely supported by our readers. Your donations pay for our small staff, tiny office, writers, designers, techies, bandwidth and servers. We don’t owe anything to advertisers, foundations, one-percenters or political parties. You are our only safety net. Please make a tax-deductible donation today.
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

More articles by:

2016 Fund Drive
Smart. Fierce. Uncompromised. Support CounterPunch Now!

  • cp-store
  • donate paypal

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

Weekend Edition
September 30, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Henry Giroux
Thinking Dangerously in the Age of Normalized Ignorance
Stanley L. Cohen
Israel and Academic Freedom: a Closed Book
Paul Craig Roberts – Michael Hudson
Can Russia Learn From Brazil’s Fate? 
Andrew Levine
A Putrid Election: the Horserace as Farce
Mike Whitney
The Biggest Heist in Human History
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: the Sick Blue Line
Rob Urie
The Twilight of the Leisure Class
Vijay Prashad
In a Hall of Mirrors: Fear and Dislike at the Polls
Alexander Cockburn
The Man Who Built Clinton World
John Wight
Who Will Save Us From America?
Pepe Escobar
Afghanistan; It’s the Heroin, Stupid
W. T. Whitney
When Women’s Lives Don’t Matter
Howard Lisnoff
What was Missing From The Nation’s Interview with Bernie Sanders
Julian Vigo
“Ooops, I Did It Again”: How the BBC Funnels Stories for Financial Gain
Jeremy Brecher
Dakota Access Pipeline and the Future of American Labor
Binoy Kampmark
Pictures Left Incomplete: MH17 and the Joint Investigation Team
Andrew Kahn
Nader Gave Us Bush? Hillary Could Give Us Trump
Steve Horn
Obama Weakens Endangered Species Act
Dave Lindorff
US Propaganda Campaign to Demonize Russia in Full Gear over One-Sided Dutch/Aussie Report on Flight 17 Downing
John W. Whitehead
Uncomfortable Truths You Won’t Hear From the Presidential Candidates
Ramzy Baroud
Shimon Peres: Israel’s Nuclear Man
Brandon Jordan
The Battle for Mercosur
Murray Dobbin
A Globalization Wake-Up Call
Jesse Ventura
Corrupted Science: the DEA and Marijuana
Richard W. Behan
Installing a President by Force: Hillary Clinton and Our Moribund Democracy
Andrew Stewart
The Democratic Plot to Privatize Social Security
Daniel Borgstrom
On the Streets of Oakland, Expressing Solidarity with Charlotte
Marjorie Cohn
President Obama: ‘Patron’ of the Israeli Occupation
Norman Pollack
The “Self-Hating” Jew: A Critique
David Rosen
The Living Body & the Ecological Crisis
Joseph Natoli
Thoughtcrimes and Stupidspeak: Our Assault Against Words
Ron Jacobs
A Cycle of Death Underscored by Greed and a Lust for Power
Uri Avnery
Abu Mazen’s Balance Sheet
Kim Nicolini
Long Drive Home
Louisa Willcox
Tribes Make History with Signing of Grizzly Bear Treaty
Art Martin
The Matrix Around the Next Bend: Facebook, Augmented Reality and the Podification of the Populace
Andre Vltchek
Failures of the Western Left
Ishmael Reed
Millennialism or Extinctionism?
Frances Madeson
Why It’s Time to Create a Cabinet-Level Dept. of Native Affairs
Laura Finley
Presidential Debate Recommendations
José Negroni
Mass Firings on Broadway Lead Singers to Push Back
Leticia Cortez
Entering the Historical Dissonance Surrounding Desafinados
Robert J. Burrowes
Gandhi: ‘My Life is My Message’
Charles R. Larson
Queen Lear? Deborah Levy’s “Hot Milk”
David Yearsley
Bring on the Nibelungen: If Wagner Scored the Debates
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail
[i]
[i]
[i]
[i]