DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment.
Opinion by Anthony Kennedy; 5-4
Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia Dissenting;
quote: Opinion Prop 8
Here's a Plain English take on United States v. Windsor, the DOMA case: The federal Defense of Marriage Act defines "marriage," for purposes of over a thousand federal laws and programs, as a union between a man and a woman only. Today the Court ruled, by a vote of five to four, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy, that the law is unconstitutional. The Court explained that the states have long had the responsibility of regulating and defining marriage, and some states have opted to allow same-sex couples to marry to give them the protection and dignity associated with marriage. By denying recognition to same-sex couples who are legally married, federal law discriminates against them to express disapproval of state-sanctioned same-sex marriage. This decision means that same-sex couples who are legally married must now be treated the same under federal law as married opposite-sex couples.
Page 4 of the Roberts dissent in DOMA, talking about Prop 8: "We hold today that we lack jurisdiction to consider it in the particular context of Hollingsworth v. Perry."
By the Chief, 5-4; Kennedy Dissents, joined by Thomas, Alito, and Sotomayor. Majority is Roberts with Scalia, Ginsburg and Sotomayor
The petitioners did not have standing to appeal the district court order.
From the opinion: We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to. We decline to do so for the first time here.
In plain English, this means that the 9th Circuit opinion is vacated and Judge Walker's ruling that Prop 8 was unconstitutional stands....for now. Opinion
This post was edited on 6/26 at 9:56 am