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

 

 

 

More articles by:

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

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

June 29, 2017
Dave Lindorff
Sy Hersh, Exposer of My Lai and Abu Ghraib, Strikes Again, Exposing US Lies About Alleged Assad Sarin ‘Attack’
Chuck Collins
What Happened to America’s Wealth? The Rich Hid It
Rev. William Alberts
When the Bible is the Root of Evil
Jeff Mackler
Trumps ‘No Fly Zone’ Escalates U.S. War Against Syria
Bill Willers
The Next World War Won’t Just Be “Over There” 
Ellen Brown
Sovereign Debt Jubilee, Japanese-Style
Jack Laun
Will There Finally be Peace With Justice in Colombia?
Binoy Kampmark
Holding the Police to Account in the UK
David Swanson
Against Ignoring the KKK
Rima Najjar
Israel’s Illegitimate Tactics Against Palestinian Armed Resistance vs. Legitimate Global Security Concerns
Mel Gurtov
Advise, Assist, Arm: The United States at War
David Welsh
Berkeley Capitulates to Police Militarization and Spying
Marion Andrew
Not Being Considerate of One’s Audience: US Television’s Coverage of Olympic and International Sports
June 28, 2017
Diana Johnstone
Macron’s Mission: Save the European Union From Itself
Jordon Kraemer
The Cultural Anxiety of the White Middle Class
Vijay Prashad
Modi and Trump: When the Titans of Hate Politics Meet
Jonathan Cook
Israel’s Efforts to Hide Palestinians From View No Longer Fools Young American Jews
Ron Jacobs
Gonna’ Have to Face It, You’re Addicted to War
Jim Lobe – Giulia McDonnell Nieto Del Rio
Is Trump Blundering Into the Next Middle East War?
Radical Washtenaw
David Ware, Killed By Police: a Vindication
John W. Whitehead
The Age of No Privacy: the Surveillance State Shifts into High Gear
Robert Mejia, Kay Beckermann and Curtis Sullivan
The Racial Politics of the Left’s Political Nostalgia
Tom H. Hastings
Courting Each Other
Winslow Myers
“A Decent Respect for the Opinions of Mankind”
Leonard Peltier
The Struggle is Never for Nothing
Jonathan Latham
Illegal GE Bacteria Detected in an Animal Feed Supplement
Deborah James
State of Play in the WTO: Toward the 11th Ministerial in Argentina
Andrew Stewart
Health Care for All: Why I Occupied Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse’s Office
Binoy Kampmark
The European Commission, Google and Anti-Competition
Jesse Jackson
A Savage Health Care Bill
Jimmy Centeno
Cats and Meows in L.A.
June 27, 2017
Jim Kavanagh
California Scheming: Democrats Betray Single-Payer Again
Jonathan Cook
Hersh’s New Syria Revelations Buried From View
Edward Hunt
Excessive and Avoidable Harm in Yemen
Howard Lisnoff
The Death of Democracy Both Here and Abroad and All Those Colorful Sneakers
Gary Leupp
Immanuel Kant on Electoral Interference
Kenneth Surin
Theresa May and the Tories are in Freefall
Slavoj Zizek
Get the Left
Robert Fisk
Saudi Arabia Wants to Reduce Qatar to a Vassal State
Ralph Nader
Driverless Cars: Hype, Hubris and Distractions
Rima Najjar
Palestinians Are Seeking Justice in Jerusalem – Not an Abusive Life-Long Mate
Norman Solomon
Is ‘Russiagate’ Collapsing as a Political Strategy?
Binoy Kampmark
In the Twitter Building: Tech Incubators and Altering Perceptions
Dean Baker
Uber’s Repudiation is the Moment for the U.S. to Finally Start Regulating the So-called Sharing Economy
Rob Seimetz
What I Saw From The Law
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail