Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Molly apologize for that Molly Line in Boston back to her when we get more developments on that in the meantime.
There has been a decision handed down at least one of the suitcases.
Regarding gay marriage in America that we expected today from the US Supreme Court.
Apparently that decision.
Is in regard to the defense of marriage Jack remember defense of marriage act was signed -- -- law passed by congress -- a law by President Clinton 1996.
And that now has been challenged in the US Supreme Court was asked to.
Well they're asked a question whether or not it was.
Within the constitutional rights or not as to whether or not certain Americans could be denied federal protections under law.
If indeed they were a married couple.
Now Shannon -- just out from the US Supreme Court she's got her gym shoes on -- -- -- order camera he has the decision now in her hands and on don't mind.
What did the justices decide can't.
It'd be it appears -- that they have struck down a portion of -- -- would -- -- and same sex cup.
From getting that same benefits as traditionally married couples.
Everything a little bit at this opinion authored by Justice Kennedy he said don't -- Guy that's married same sex couples of the duties and responsibilities.
That are an essential part of married life and that -- in most cases would be honored to accept.
We're don't when not in -- he goes on to say that.
Classic -- don't want -- its restrictions and restraints are those persons were joined in same sex marriages made lawful by their state.
So this is talking about different -- states have different laws different rules on marriage so -- same sex married couples are married.
Their marriages are recognized as valid and legitimate in their state.
Because of Dominique could not collect the number of federal benefits more than a thousand of them we're talking about -- -- and other retirement and survivor benefits those kinds of things.
What Kenny goes on to say it is.
-- a singles out a class of persons.
These IS -- entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty it imposes a disability on the class.
By refusing technology status this state finds to be dignified and proper.
So it sounds like he's saying here.
-- is no good in as far as it defines marriage as only between one man and woman it doesn't recognize the federal benefits for same sex couples who are legally married and.
They're saying okay now should not let you catch your breath they're just our viewers know you gotta run a couple hundred yards -- granite steps there on the US Supreme Court just to recap now.
-- -- a law that's been on the books for seventeen years now has been struck down and a 54 ruling.
Which means -- and that couples married in one of the states.
-- same sex marriage is legal they will now have access to what 11100 federal benefits.
They will have the rights and protections that are currently provided to.
Opposite sex married couples under the federal law on the basis of their marital status that they have chosen to get married in a state.
That recognizes gay marriage do I have that right.
You do the closing this opinion by Justice Kennedy it is 854 opinion -- my counts.
Matt does not my strong suit that's -- looks -- at this moment he says the federal statute meaning don't like is in Allen.
For -- legitimate -- overcomes the purpose and -- activist parents and -- insert those in this state by its marriage laws.
Sought to protect and personhood and dignity and -- seeking to -- place this protection in treating those person.
-- living in marriages last respected than others the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
Now extend this opinion and it's holding -- confined to those lawful marriages that sound like he's staying in states where these practicing sex marriages are valid.
Think federal government cannot keep those couples.
From getting the benefits they -- under federal law and I -- -- really you -- finally my.
Right -- 54 decision Kennedy apparently wrote the decision would have bring in the judge and an -- -- Our Fox News senior judicial analyst Bret -- standing by as well we're giving everybody.
In the coming our first do you judge are you surprised.
I'm not surprised it at this outcome bill from the way the oral argument went.
From the fact that the federal government refused to defend the defense of marriage act in the House of Representatives had this to us to hire outside lawyers said to do so.
I'm also not surprise given that justice Kennedy's track record.
In cases of this nature.
Affecting same sex issues.
This was say a very difficult case for the court to uphold -- in this context -- -- a same sex couple got married in Canada where it was legal.
Moved to new York and the time of the death of one of them same sex marriage was legal here in New York.
Because if they had been an opposite sex couple the assets would have passed from the decedent -- -- to the living on it was a million dollars.
Instead of collecting the million dollars from her -- her deceased spouse.
She only collected 650000.
Dollars the rest went to the IRS.
That would not have happened that if they had been an opposite sex couple so she's gonna get it Edith Windsor is her name she lives here in New York City.
She's gonna collect that 350000.
Dollar refund from the IRS with interest.
As will all of same sex couples married in states where same sex marriage is lawful the federal government of the United States of America.
Is now required to recognize.
Marriages have people of the same sex.
Where they have been solemn guys made lawful in states that that.
Make some law I don't what is unconstitutional.
-- the deprivation of the equal liberty of persons has protected it.
By the Fifth Amendment it only applies in states that recognize gay marriage judge how many states is that.
That's about eleven states bill.
It it that it it's hard to say how this would affect states like for example New Jersey.
Where same sex marriage is prohibited that civil unions are permitted.
And I don't know that I have the opinion in front of me if the court addresses that or the courts -- -- program.
Visit that issue on another on another all right judge.
-- by there when he get back to Shannon Bream Shannon's been going through the decision while we were talking here back to the steps of the Supreme Court when else do you see their -- Do you remember during the argument there a couple of points that stood out there was one point where justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg just decides that the majority here in striking down.
This portion of the defense of marriage act she said what you're doing is having couples looking get married same sex couples that get -- in various states.
I can enjoy the benefits and -- statement but -- don't let the key to these federal benefits we talked about more than 11100 different benefits that issue.
And you'll remember the phrase that came from that they have arguments she said what you're giving amnesty -- -- version of marriage.
It's not a full mile version and that seems to be the heart of what this opinion is all about saying these people are recognized in their states is having legitimate relationship in many cases.
They can adopt children can do all kinds of things they can have -- survivor benefits and and all kinds of things -- that any other traditionally married couple have.
But because of this federal law which was passed overwhelmingly bipartisan.
Without our bipartisan majorities in congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton and who -- -- that.
They don't have to go on you're number -- that early on -- this case was first filed it deals with a couple two women who lived in New York.
They were married in Canada and and -- -- New York -- when one of them passed away the other was left the huge estate bill.
Because new York at that I didn't recognize their -- and federal tax loss said that she had -- -- -- -- they weren't legally married.
At the time she filed her lawsuit not too long after that the federal government attorney general and President Obama came out and said.
They would not defend don't let it would enforce -- but as the legal battles for playing out they would defended and in the course of this case it actually flip side and went to court.
Fighting against don't like even though it into law on the books duly passed by congress and signed by a president.
So the administration this big big win for them today also they have argued for this this provision to go -- this portion of -- is gone.
With the support of the White House and the attorney general a big success for them today -- You mention the Obama administration when it gets in the politics is now a judge him by Shannon -- stand by as well -- there is with me now.
Bob Brett -- I go to you quote now reading from the decision 76 pages in length now.
-- Dohmann seeks to injure the very class New York seeks to protect.
By doing so it violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the federal government reading from.
That excerpt now Brett on the politics of this -- analyze.
Well this administration has come full circle on this originally.
Defending don't want band choosing not to defend don't want them essentially saying that don't when needed to be struck down.
The president of course in his evolution as he called it on gay marriage.
Will now support this this ruling I just want to read one other clue.
Piece of this.
From Justice Kennedy.
And this I think it's the heart of and -- really nailed it as well the federal statute he says he is invalid.
For no legitimate purpose.
Overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injured those -- the state by its marriage laws sought to protect in personhood and dignity.
By seeking to displace this protection.
And those persons as living in marriage is less respected.
Than others that's Justice Kennedy Justice Scalia Justice Thomas.
And the Chief Justice all dissented here saying there is.
No jurors get jurisdiction for the Supreme Court to have this rule.
Bret thank you -- Kennedy also -- this -- -- same sex couples.
In an unstable position of being in a second tier -- marriage which refers back to a channel was talking about.
About the skim milk analogy that was used during arguments.
Filter by section