U.S. Supreme Court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act in landmark rights case
Gay rights advocate Vin Testa waves a rainbow flag in front of the Supreme Court at sun up in Washington Wednesday.
J. Scott Applewhite | AP Photo
- Update: Supreme Court issues historic rulings on same-sex marriage
- Related: Ann Arbor's gay community holding rally to discuss next steps in fight for equality
Editor's note: This story was updated at 10:45 a.m. with the court's decision on Proposition 8.
In a series of landmark decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act and cleared the way for gay marriage in California Wednesday morning.
The 5-4 decision found the act unconstitutional as a violation of the Fifth Amendment.
"DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty,” according to the written opinion from the court.
DOMA denies federal benefits to gay and lesbian couples in states that allow same-sex unions.
Twelve states and the District of Columbia have adopted same-sex marriage.
Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered the opinion of the court, and was joined by the court's four liberal justices for the majority: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Dissenting were Chief Justice John Roberts and justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
"Under DOMA, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways," said Kennedy, the Associated Press reported. "DOMA's principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal."
Scalia, who read his dissent aloud, stated that the court should not have decided the case, the Associated Press reported.
It’s the first of two major same-sex marriage cases the high court announced Wednesday -- the other on California's Proposition 8 -- the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court cleared the way for same-sex marriage in California by overruling lower appeals court decisions and holding to the initial trial court declaration that the ban is unconstitutional. The ruling deferred to the lower court on a legal technicality and did not make a statement about same-sex marriage as a practice.
On Proposition 8, Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, and was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Scalia, the Associated Press reported.
This story will be updated.
Amy Biolchini covers Washtenaw County, health and environmental issues for AnnArbor.com. Reach her at (734) 623-2552, amybiolchini@annarbor.com or on Twitter.
Comments
Alan Goldsmith
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 5:29 p.m.
Rick Snyder's Attorney General Bill Schuette releases a Facebook post on today's ruling: "Today the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states, not the federal government, retain the constitutional authority to define marriage. Michigan's Constitution stands and the will of the people to define marriage as between one man & one woman endures in the Great Lakes State." Synder's silence is stunning.
Jaime Magiera
Thu, Jun 27, 2013 : 2:29 a.m.
Bill Schuette, the guy who publicly supported Andrew Shirvell. Got it.
John
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 7:39 p.m.
That's because Snyder is spineless. I loved those commercials that were against the unions where Schuette was on TV spouting "don't change our constitution, it's dangerous.." But they couldn't change it fast enough when they wanted to discriminate against gays..
mady
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 4:45 p.m.
Yesssss!
Solitude
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 3:58 p.m.
The headline on this article is false. The Court struck down two provisions of DOMA, not the entire act (unfortunately.). http://hosted2.ap.org/MIARB/140fe8300e9c43bab097b794ca7594c6/Article_2013-06-26-Supreme%20Court-Gay%20Marriage/id-2ebafed21487480d945ff12763a08d65
Solitude
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 5:05 p.m.
AA.com has posted a new article, and the title has been changed to reflect the distinction.
snark12
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 4:49 p.m.
Actually, to be proper, the case before SCOTUS didn't even deal with that section of DOMA. Some other case will probably come forward to test it in the future.
snark12
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 4:47 p.m.
SCOTUS ruled unconstitutional the part of DOMA that said the Feds would not recognize gay marriages from states that legally allowed them. DOMA also says that a state does not have to recognize the gay marriage of a couple from a state where such a marriage is legal. That portion of the law remains.
Solitude
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 4:11 p.m.
After further review, it's interesting to see how different media outlets are framing the decision. The Washington Post is also declaring that the Court "struck down DOMA," while other outlets, such as the AP in the link above, state that specific provisions of DOMA are impacted.
Tim Hornton
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 3:38 p.m.
Bout time we quit judging people by who or what they have sex with! It is now time to stop the hate of sex offenders too and embrace that many of the pedophile ones were simply born that way loving young children. If you are born with a sexual attraction to other than "normal" then who are you to judge. I for one am still sexually attracted to good looking women who are not my wife, if I cheat on her then its nature just calling me to do what I was born to do. We need to get all these sexual "sins" out of our culture and do what just feels right in our own heart. Thanks!
seldon
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 6:03 p.m.
Let me be more explicit: anyone who doesn't immediately see a distinction between a pedophile who preys on children and someone who wants to marry another consenting adult likely has issues distinguishing between children and consenting adults generally. Making this argument strongly suggests that one can't tell the difference, and therefore is not someone who should be allowed around kids, ever.
Billy
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 4:38 p.m.
Your reasoning is completely invalid and illogical. The difference between a pedophile and a homosexual is that only one of them is breaking the law if they choose to act on their desires. ACTING on your impulses and desires is the crime here....not the impulses and desires themselves....unless you're down with thought crime of course.
Solitude
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 4:36 p.m.
@Usual Suspect, are you seriously going to argue that a legal fight over the denial of federal civil opportunity to adults based on the behavior of consenting adults is somehow equated with the sexual abuse of babies and children? Rather that even justify that pathetic and ignorant idea with a response, my question is what does any of it have to do with the topic of this article? Pedophilia has as much to do with this topic as does rocket science or road construction.
mun
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 4:04 p.m.
"I for one am still sexually attracted to good looking women who are not my wife, if I cheat on her then its nature just calling me to do what I was born to do." Cheating on your wife is a behavior, not genetic trait.
Usual Suspect
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 4 p.m.
All TH is doing is using the same reasoning posited by gay rights activists. They declared it valid reasoning, so don't jump on him. All he's doing is the same thing they did.
seldon
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 3:52 p.m.
I'm deeply suspicious of anyone who doesn't see a difference between children and consenting adults.
David Briegel
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 3:48 p.m.
This is the type of silliness that makes it impossible to have an honest discussion with people who are intent on discrimination based on their judgementalism!
Kafkaland
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 3:33 p.m.
Are there any local celebrations of this historic ruling?
Jaime Magiera
Thu, Jun 27, 2013 : 2:17 a.m.
Sounds like Tim Horton and Usual Suspect need to find one of those local celebrations. They are little bit uptight – and "the gays" do throw the best parties :-)
John
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 7:37 p.m.
Hate to burst your bubble Tim and Usual...but I listen to Black Sabbath and play hockey. I've been with my partner for 15 years....don't much care for show tunes but I do like to see a good play!
SurlyCommenter
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 7:36 p.m.
Tim Horton and Usual Suspect, do you actually know any gay people or do you just assume you know them because of the stereotypes? How do you like it when people lump you into the stereotype of the ignorant bigot without ever getting to know you as an actual individual person who has the same rights as any one else in this great country?
Usual Suspect
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 3:58 p.m.
Any place that has show tunes playing.
Tim Hornton
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 3:48 p.m.
The Necto seems to be my guess.
Amy Biolchini
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 3:38 p.m.
There's a rally planned at 4 p.m. today at the Aut Bar in Braun Court. Details are in the story we've linked to at the top of this page.
Will Warner
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 3:28 p.m.
Same-sex marriage has heretofore been denied because, heretofore, in Western culture (for 2000 years or so), homosexuality has been taboo. The 14th-amendment/equal-protection argument for same-sex marriage basically asks the court whether society may continue to give the force of law to its sexual taboos. The people asking that question think they are only asking it about homosexuality, but since they articulate no limiting principle, it seems it would apply to all sexual taboos. The new "marriage equality" law in Maine permits the marriages of a woman and a woman or a man and man, but it defines a dozen or more taboo relationships and denies a marriage license to people in those relationships, even though those relationships involve only two, single, adult, people. For example, the law will not permit a single man to marry his single first cousin. What possible state interest is served by this prohibition? If none, then, by the equal protection argument, the Maine law does not achieve marriage equality. We have marriage for two reasons. First, it binds the man to the woman so as to civilize him by her influence. And God knows we need that. Second, it provides for the protection and support of women in their child bearing and rearing roles. If society has changed to the point that these two things are no longer needed, then marriage itself is no longer needed. We can get rid of it, because we will find next that dispensing any benefits on the basis of marital status is discriminatory.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Thu, Jun 27, 2013 : 1:54 p.m.
Most taboos have nothing to do with due process (e.g., a man can have sex with a squirrel if he wants, but the squirrel cannot benefit from the tax breaks that come with marriage). This is a taboo whose enforcement by law harms adult human beings. It is a taboo that is religiously based being enforced on people whose religious beliefs are not the same. It is a taboo whose enforcement serves no compelling state reason. It therefore is wrong for the STATE to enforce it. Churches are free to do so per the 1st Amendment. Not the state. As for two brothers--whatever. If that's our next step, so be it. Two consenting adults. I wouldn't marry my brother, but to each his own.
Will Warner
Thu, Jun 27, 2013 : 12:51 p.m.
Ghost: I don't disagree with the decision to strike down the Federal benefits provision of DOMA, for all the reasons you say. I understand that a compelling state interest must be served when a law has a disparate impact. What I want to know is what state interest is served by the provision in Maine's new marriage law that prohibits the marriage of two bothers? If there is none, how does the law achieve marriage equality? Let me suggest that there is none; it is just an example of society giving the force of law to its taboos. Speaking now of the broader debate (broader then DOMA), for many years now the argument has been that denial of same sex marriage is a violation of the principle of equal protection under the 14-amendment. Given that the only reason (not a good reason, but still the reason) that same-sex marriage and, for that matter, interracial marriage, were prohibited is that they violated our taboos. People pretended that there were other reasons, but there weren't: it was just society giving the force of law to its taboos. I want us to face the fact that this issue boils down to these questions: 1) May we give the force of law to ALL of our taboos – without any other reason; or 2) may we pick SOME taboos and give then the force of law without other reason; or 3) may give the force of law to NONE of our taboos without other reasons. My point is that people think that number 3 is the right answer but they actually practice number 2.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Thu, Jun 27, 2013 : 11:44 a.m.
This decision is about what governments can and cannot do. Therefore, while we appreciate your opinion of the purpose of marriage, if those are not the state's explicit reasons for not sanctioning gay marriage, they are beside the point. This is not about sexual taboos, nor is it a 14th Amendment decision (it is a 5th Amendment decision). This is a about the government conferring benefits on a certain class of people but not on another class and doing so WITHOUT A COMPELLING STATE INTEREST. The last is key. If there were a compelling state interest, the state could continue what it is doing. But there is none. Indeed, the data suggests that there is a compelling state interest--economic and social--to recognize gay marriage. That it does not lays bare that this is prejudice, pure and simple. GN&GL
Will Warner
Thu, Jun 27, 2013 : 1:35 a.m.
Alan: I'm not missing your point, I'm disagreeing with it. What you describe is how things SHOULD be. But if laws do not exist just "because a particular group of people find the behavior unappealing" why was sodomy illegal in this country for 200 years, when as you and I agree there was no good reason for it to be? The new marriage laws contain similarly curiosities: If there is a good reason why brothers can't marry even in marriage-equality states, what it is?
alan
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 10:12 p.m.
I think you missed my point Will which was simply that laws do not exist merely because somebody considers behavior "taboo" but rather because the state does have a compelling interest in prohibiting certain behaviors. Interracial marriage is no longer illegal because the state has no compelling interest in banning it. Sodomy laws are invalid because the state has no compelling interest. In all instances where a particular type of marriage is not allowed it is because the state has an interest, be it because it involves a victim, or for reasons of public health, or for some other reason. It is not because a particular group of people find the behavior unappealing. You appeared to beg the question that taboos are a basis for regulating behavior and I was pointing out that that's not the case.
Will Warner
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 9:37 p.m.
Hey Ghost. Nice to hear from you again. I suspect I will go back into "retirement" after this little debate. But to answer your question. I don't say that these are the reasons why government sanctions marriage – governments can be manipulated into doing anything. I say that those are the benefits marriage brings to society. It is just the observation of a man you has lived 60 years, widely, deeply and contemplatively. I suppose I could cherry-pick some statistics of unknown provenance that were published only because they appear to support what some researcher hopes will be found. I'm more interested in your reaction to my first paragraph and to my contention that actual marriage equality has not been acheived in any state.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 7:50 p.m.
"We have marriage for two reasons. First, it binds the man to the woman so as to civilize him by her influence. And God knows we need that. Second, it provides for the protection and support of women in their child bearing and rearing roles. If society has changed to the point that these two things are no longer needed, then marriage itself is no longer needed. We can get rid of it, because we will find next that dispensing any benefits on the basis of marital status is discriminatory." Any evidence that these are the reasons that governments sanction marriage (the issue in both of these cases) aside from your own beliefs? GN&GL
Will Warner
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 6:25 p.m.
Alan: I'm not making a "what next," sometimes called slippery slope, argument. I would be if I were claiming that other people in currently forbidden relationships might expand the argument to win acceptance of their relationships. But I'm claiming they don't need to expand it: They can use the same equal-protection argument we're using for same-sex marriage. The burden is now on the state to identify compelling state interests served by the exclusion of these relationships. If the reasons you cite are not really that compelling, then all of these relationships (again, involving only two, single, adult, people) are at the same place on the slope. You discuss a number of forbidden relationships and claim that they are forbidden not because they are taboo but for other reasons. Is it just a coincidence that all of them are also taboo relationships? Are you sure that it isn't the case that a marriage of an adult brother and sister is forbidden because contemplating such a union grosses us out? If the reason is concern over birth defects, the marriage-equality states would permit the marriage of two brothers, but they don't.
alan
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 5:52 p.m.
You're making the standard invalid "what next" argument. First cousin marriages are only illegal in half of the states. If you want to marry your cousin you can go to another state. The reason that it's illegal anywhere has nothing to do with sexual taboos. First cousin reproduction roughly doubles the incidence of birth defects. Still very small, but it's there. For siblings it is higher. First cousin marriages have been very common throughout history and if you check your genealogy it is inevitable. Other people raise even sillier arguments such as marrying children or animals. You can't marry a child because they can't consent and we thus consider them victims. Sex with animals has the potential to spread zoonotic diseases. Although it's not always apparent, you will generally find good reasons for laws if you dig. This one had no compelling reason.
treetowncartel
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 5:33 p.m.
To support your position there is a Kid Rock called Only God Knows why, it is a common term/ expression
Will Warner
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 5 p.m.
From Dictonary.com "God knows" = Truly, certainly, definitely, as in "God knows I need a winter coat ". This expression...merely emphasizes the truth of the statement it accompanies, similar to "goodness knows"
Will Warner
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 4:38 p.m.
"God knows" is just an expression. My argument does not appeal in any way to relgion. I'm an atheist.
Cory C
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 4:22 p.m.
I'm sorry sir, but any argument that has "And God knows we need that." as one of it's premises is inadmissible in the United States. Freedom of religion means not just your religion.
David Cahill
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 3:27 p.m.
The anti-DOMA decision undercuts any legal argument against gay marriage. I expect Michigan's constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is doomed. Let's hear it for the Supreme Court!
snark12
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 4:55 p.m.
AnnArBo is correct in the meaning of the interpretation, I think, but Scalia himself acknowledged what David Cahill forecast in his dissent: "By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition."
AnnArBo
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 4:40 p.m.
Actually no, The supreme court said DOMA federally discriminates against "legal" state gay marriages, and declined to take up prop 8..........so basically it left it up to legislatures to hammer this issue out as it should be. It did not say there is a constitutional right to gay marriage.
treetowncartel
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 3:03 p.m.
While I have no dog in the fight I am ok with this decision. I do see an irony though. Under English common law, which drew from Christian religious practices, marriage was really a transfer of property, which is basically where all state law comes from except Louisiana . A man would marry a woman, and depending on the status of siblings in either of the newlyweds family, there were certain things that would be attained from the wife's family as a result of him acquiring his new found bride, his new piece of property per se. The wife traditionally had rights and interests that were not equal to her husbands. So, here we have people clamoring about equal rights and wanting to participate in something that inherently makes one person less equal than the other. Granted, the benefits of being married far outweigh the inequities associated with it.
Atlas Shrugged
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 3 p.m.
The late Robert H. Bork summed it all up in one of his books: Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline
Jaime Magiera
Thu, Jun 27, 2013 : 8:42 p.m.
Atlas, I can assure you that the population will continue to grow despite gay marriage. Also, note that the actions of people choosing to love someone of the same sex are not actions against you. Such actions are between the people involved in the marriage, and the state which is granting them rights to enjoy. You'd be hard pressed to show where gay marriage is an action against others.
Atlas Shrugged
Thu, Jun 27, 2013 : 8:04 p.m.
I knew well in advance that I'd get a lot of negative votes about my post. A current -43 exceeded my dreams. I think that the majority of you who support the SCOTUS decision, think that legalizing gay marriage is fine, and the like, suffer from not only liberalism but also the very dangerous concept of moral relativism: the notion that everyone is equal and should be treated that way, and that no matter what their views (or their hostile actions), everyone is equal in your eyes, or perhaps in the eyes of God. This moral relativism has contributed profoundly to the decline of freedom, and birth rates, in many formally free democratic societies.... Germany, France, Sweden, and so on. Demographics, and birth rates, are crucial to the survival of societies and cultures, and gay marriage isn't going to fill that void. Indeed, gay marriage and similar proclivities will only serve to hasten the demise of our culture.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 5:36 p.m.
@Tim Horton: Camperio-Ciani A, Corna F, Capiluppi C (November 2004). "Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity". Proc. Biol. Sci. 271 (1554): 2217–21 You're Welcome. GN&GL
Solitude
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 5:03 p.m.
By the way @T Hornton, if you are interested in the science behind the genetic basis for homosexuality, at least among males, this is a good place to start: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691850/pdf/15539346.pdf
Solitude
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 4:57 p.m.
@Billy, I firmly believe that most homosexuals are born that way, and I also acknowledge that some people go both ways, and some people adopt alternate sexual preferences by choice. Pedophilia has ZERO to do with homosexuality, and the persistent attempts by "Tim Hornton" to try to equate the two is about as offensive and indefensible as it gets. Adult homosexual behavior has NOTHING WHATSOEVER in common with pedophilia.
Tim Hornton
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 4:34 p.m.
Solitude... Perhaps you could first find me the scientific evidence of the "gay" gene, funny how you want an opposing view to be deleted and not open to rhetoric in a comment section, AAnews is liberal but their not anti free speech. And response to Mun.. Gay sex is a behavior along with pedophiles. I completely agree sir, both are described by an act or action... Unlike the skin color you are born with or gender. Are not behaviors always judged in court or in men's hearts?
Billy
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 4:33 p.m.
"I'd like very much for you to produce some scientific evidence that pedophiles are born that way" So homosexuals can't be born gay then either? What about people with a fetish? I mean we ARE talking about sexual attraction here...
Solitude
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 4:05 p.m.
@Tim Hornton. What do pedophiles have to do with this discussion? Nothing. You are a troll and your comments should be deleted. Before you are banned, however, I'd like very much for you to produce some scientific evidence that pedophiles are born that way, as opposed to being created, most usually by being the victims of child sexual abuse when they are young.
David Briegel
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 3:48 p.m.
I would you say you got Bork'd!
Tim Hornton
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 3:45 p.m.
Good point Mun! We need to start treating pedophiles who are born liking children no different either. When did people start judging people for who or what they have sexual relations with.
Alex Swary
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 3:34 p.m.
Funny you should mention Bork. When he was too crazy to get approved for the Supreme Court, Reagan put Justice Kennedy there instead. That didn't work out so well for gay marriage opponents, did it?
mun
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 3:28 p.m.
That's right! Treating people, who are different than you, like normal people is a sin!
tom swift jr.
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 3:18 p.m.
Bork is that Swedish Chef guy on the Muppets, right?
David Briegel
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 2:48 p.m.
Hip Hip Hooray Hip Hip Hooray Hip Hip Hooray!!! Discrimination is no longer cool!
Basic Bob
Thu, Jun 27, 2013 : 2:07 a.m.
Gloating is not cool. Never was, never will be.
John
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 7:36 p.m.
Oh those poor gun owners always being discriminated against...just like those poor Christians always being persecuted...wah! Victory is tasting pretty sweet today!
David Briegel
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 3:43 p.m.
Actually, some still celebrate their "right to discriminate". That's what this fight is all about!
arborani
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 3:23 p.m.
It never was.
Ricebrnr
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 3:19 p.m.
Apparently that does not extent to legal gun-owners where bigotry there is widely accepted
Willie Reid
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 2:27 p.m.
Now if we can just Michigan out of the stone age.
Willie Reid
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 3:24 p.m.
I'm perfectly happy here in Michigan. I just believe in equal rights for all. This isn't about me. I can be married anywhere including here. This is about people of our state that are treated as second class citizens.
Usual Suspect
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 2:57 p.m.
Nobody's forcing you to stay here, Willie. I'm guessing you'd be happier in California.
David Briegel
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 2:49 p.m.
California voted on it also. Discrimination is not cool! Love the sinner, hate the sin. I've waited a long time to say that!
John
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 2:39 p.m.
Last I checked, public opinion has changed and should be put to another vote in Michigan
Bcar
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 2:38 p.m.
last I checked it was the citizens that voted on it, not anyone in lansing. bet the tune would be diff if jenny was still on the block...
dsponini
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 2:31 p.m.
We need to vote the cavemen occupying Lansing out of office, and will get out of the stone age!
Bcar
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 2:25 p.m.
Bam. Surprised it was a 5-4.
sayzme
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 2:25 p.m.
Hooray!!! Now we wait for Prop 8 decision....though I'm pretty sure SCOTUS is going to throw that back to the states
mun
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 3:58 p.m.
Yes, the cultural decline continues. That's what they said about Loving vs. Virginia. One chooses their sexual orientation about as much as one chooses their race.
Usual Suspect
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 2:56 p.m.
OK, fine, so cultural decline continues. That's not exactly a surprise.
John
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 2:40 p.m.
Sorry Usual....Prop 8 was OVERTURNED as well. Let the gay marriages in California resume!!!
Usual Suspect
Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 2:35 p.m.
Seems they would, since the decision in the first one twice mentioned state laws, seemingly in support of states' rights.