United States v. Windsor - A Summary

I read through the full opinion, and here are my takeaways

Kennedy's Opinion

The best word to describe the writing is incoherent. It seems like he has two main reasons to strike down Section 3 of the DoMA: federalism and Due Process. For neither reason did he provide a logical, organized, detailed argument. He instead seemed to switch back and forth between the two reasons. He talked about how the federal government shouldn't have the power to put asunder what states have decided, and he often used emotionally charged words like humiliate and demean to describe the purpose of the legislation.

This was not a good judicial opinion. It was both poorly written and constructed. It would not convince anyone. After reading it, it seems like Kennedy wanted to strike down Section 3, and just had to offer up some defense, any defense of doing so. Kennedy also went on at length about how the only reason the legislation was passed was to consign gays into a sub-class. His not acknowledging that any other reason could exist or unwillingness to give the legislators and the President the benefit of the doubt is extremely disheartening for someone who is supposed to be learned and able to look from multiple points of view.

Roberts's Dissent

Roberts only defends the legislators and President by arguing that there were reasons other than the nefarious ones Kennedy discusses to pass the DoMA. The remainder of his dissent is an attempt to limit the scope of the majority opinion.

Scalia's Dissent

Basically, Scalia argued only that the Supreme Court should never have considered the case because the Executive branch wasn't defending it.

Scalia's opinion was extremely well-written. It was persuasive (even though I don't agree), unlike Kennedy's. He was also upset with the quality of the majority's opinion, several times making tongue-in-cheek remarks.

Here are some excellent quotes.

It should be noted that Scalia's opinion would have the same effect on the plaintiff as the majority, that she would win the case, and effectively Section 3 would be struck down.

Alito's Dissent

Alito argued that Section 3 of the DoMA had a purpose other than to "demean" and "humiliate" and that the 5th Amendment's Due Process clause only applies to rights that are long-lived and traditional, which gay marriage is not. They agreed with Kennedy, that the case should be heard.

My View

I don't see how giving people the state and federal benefits of marriage only if they sign a contract with someone of the opposite sex doesn't violate the fifth amendment. You're giving some people benefits that you're not giving others. I also think that the federal government does not have the right to overrule the laws of the states as to marriage.

However, I also believe that this has the same effect on multiple marriages or incestual marriages. Constitutionally, I don't see how those can continue to be outlawed.

As to Scalia's opinion, I think the Supreme Court had to get involved because Congress wanted to defend it. Congress should have as much right to defend a law they passed as the President. The Constitution gives the power to the Executive only, but I believe this was just to assign responsibility. If there was a dispute as to who should defend, then the Executive would win, but if the Executive decided it didn't want to defend it, then as Kennedy said, it would give the Executive an extra veto power.