WASHINGTON DC — The clearest sign that a majority of the Court believes the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional is how tenaciously three of the most conservative justices fought to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on its constitutionality in the first place. Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia and Alito fought tooth and nail to dismiss the case on jurisdictional grounds — an effort that is likely, if not certain, to fail. Most of the left-of-center bloc appeared skeptical of the conservatives’ theory, and Justice Kennedy at one point stated that it “seems to me there’s injury here” sufficient to justify the Court hearing the case. Kennedy did make a pointed comparison between President Obama’s decision not to defend DOMA and President Bush’s infamous signing statements, but this is more likely a gratuitous swipe at the President, than a sign that Kennedy will ultimately vote to kill the case.

Should the Court reach the merits, Kennedy left little doubt that he would vote to strike down DOMA, but not on grounds that bear any resemblance to the Constitution. DOMA is unconstitutional because it violates the Constitution’s guarantee that all persons receive the “equal protection of the laws.” Kennedy, however, largely brushed over this fact to hone in on a states’ rights argument similar to one tea partiers have used to claim Medicare is unconstitutional. In Kennedy’s words, DOMA is problematic because it runs “in conflict with what has always been thought to be the essence of the State police power, which is to regulate marriage, divorce, custody.”

This is not an accurate description of what DOMA does. The primary effect of DOMA is not to “regulate marriage” it is to define who does who does not receive certain federal benefits — benefits such as tax exemptions, Social Security benefits for spouses and veterans benefits. The overwhelming majority of these benefits were enacted through Congress’ power under the Constitution to tax and spend money, a power which necessarily includes the authority to decide who is taxed and who receives federal spending. Kennedy, however, seems to think that Congress cannot define the scope of federal benefits in ways that may also touch upon marriage. There is no basis for this in the Constitution’s text.

There is, however, a limited basis for Kennedy’s views in the Constitution’s history. In the earliest days of the Republic, James Madison proposed a narrow, extra-textual view of the Constitution that would have limited Congress’ power to tax and spend money to subjects specifically mentioned elsewhere in the document. Alexander Hamilton, by contrast, argued that the we have to follow the words of the Constitution we have — not limits that cannot be found in the Constitution’s text. Hamilton won, and a unanimous Supreme Court agreed with him many years later.

If Madison had won, we likely could not have Medicare, because the Constitution does not specifically mention health care. We likely could not have Social Security, because it does not mention retirement. Medicaid, food stamps, and, indeed, virtually all of the modern American safety net would probably be on the chopping block. Kennedy’s suggestion, that judges can write a “marriage” exemption into the Constitution that doesn’t exist may be the closest that any justice has ever come to embracing Madison’s rejected theory — and it would be truly dangerous if five justices ever signed on to it.
Read more

During oral arguments this morning, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts appeared to at least entertain the argument by House Republicans that gays and lesbians are too politically powerful for constitutional protection.

Roberts suggested that gays and lesbians must be “politically powerful” because politicians are “falling all over themselves” to endorse gay marriage, according to a tweet by Mother Jones’ Adam Serwer. The brief by Paul Clement, who represented the House of Representatives in defending DOMA, had reasoned that gays and lesbians are winning political battles and “have the attention of lawmakers,” an absurd claim since the “power” assertion is factually inaccurate, and because such an argument would also cancel out protections for racial minorities and women.

Roberts and his fellow conservatives also expressed concern over the White House’s decision not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, with Kennedy calling it “very troubling” and Justice Antonin Scalia criticizing the Justice Department’s “new regime.”

By contrast, several of the court’s liberal justices expressed alarm over the impact of DOMA’s actual deprivation of federal marriage benefits on gays and lesbians, with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg calling the rights left for married couples after DOMA “skim milk” and questioning, “What kind of marriage is this?” Justice Elena Kagan, meanwhile, pointed to evidence from a House of Representatives report that lawmakers passed DOMA with improper motives. Justice Anthony Kennedy, the likely swing vote, repeatedly expressed a different concern with DOMA — that it impinged on state definitions of marriage.

One way or another, marriage equality is coming to the United States. A recent poll shows support for equality at 58 percent, up 21 points from just a decade ago, and a massive 81 percent of adults under 30 support treating same-sex couples just like any other. The Supreme Court should strike down the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California’s equally anti-gay Proposition 8 because they are unconstitutional, but one way or another, marriage equality is happening. And it is happening soon.

Perhaps for this reason, two leading conservatives published columns last week advocating a way the Supreme Court could strike down DOMA while doing maximal damage to the social safety net. Five days after anti-science columnist George Will published a piece seeking to discredit the social science supporting marriage equality, Will endorsed a radical misreading of the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment that would lead to DOMA being struck down. One day later, Michael McConnell, a former federal judge and leading socially conservative law professor, made the same argument in the Wall Street Journal. Here’s McConnell’s version:

[T]he court need not base its decision in Windsor on the merits of the same-sex marriage question. The leading argument against DOMA all along has been that the federal government lacks authority under the Constitution to create and enforce a definition of marriage different from that of the state in which a couple resides. It is hard to think of an issue more clearly reserved to state law under constitutional tradition than the definition of marriage.

The court has held that “regulation of domestic relations” has “long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States” (Sosna v. Iowa, 1975). In the past, the court has recognized a “domestic relations exception” to federal judicial power. Although the legal question is close, the court could take the same path in Windsor—holding that DOMA improperly intrudes on the reserved powers of the states.

This is constitutional gobbledygook. McConnell and Will are both arguing that, because the Constitution does not give the federal government power over “domestic relations” it follows that DOMA exceeds Congress’ lawful powers. This is similar to the argument conservatives raised against the Affordable Care Act, and it is also compete nonsense.

Federal law grants married couples numerous financial benefits that unmarried individuals do not enjoy. Married couples pay taxes at different rates than single people. They are exempt from estate and gift taxes that apply to their spouse’s property. They receive certain benefits under Social Security, Medicare and other federal programs, and so forth. These financial benefits are constitutional because the Constitution gives Congress the power “to lay and collect taxes . . . and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States” — what lawyers call the “tax and spending power” — and the power to tax and spend necessarily includes the power to decide who pays what taxes and who receives what benefits. DOMA does not, as Will and McConnell suggest, define the meaning of “marriage” for the entire nation. Rather, it mostly just defines the meaning of the word “marriage” for the purpose of determining who is eligible for federal benefits that are given only to married couples.

If Congress does not have the power to decide who pays what tax rates and who receives what federal benefits, than the entirety of America’s safety net could be in danger. Retirement programs like Social Security cannot exist unless the government can limit it to persons of retirement age. Veterans benefits cannot exist unless the government can limit them to veterans. Even progressive taxation is in jeopardy under Will and McConnell’s theory, because the government must have the power to decide who pays more and who pays less taxes.

In other words, if the Supreme Court embraces Will and McConnell’s misreading of the Constitution, it could radically rework America’s social contract and leave most Americans much worse off as a result.
Read more