TCTI: Too Crazy To Ignore
Dave Ross
AP: f028f8fc-6af9-4020-8bc5-ff3b63884ded
Wednesday's Supreme Court ruling was a kind of a Gay Missouri Compromise - where for gay people, America has the free states, and the not-so-free states. (AP Photo/File)

The Gay Missouri Compromise

Here's how Edith Windsor, the plaintiff in the Defense of Marriage Case described the Supreme Court's ruling yesterday, "The beginning of the end of stigma, of lying about who we are. It's different level of dignity that what we've had."

But for those of you who still remember your American history -- it was more like the Missouri Compromise -- except applied to gay people. Like this person, who was very happy. "We're actually equals, which we haven't been for years!"

Except not quite...

The Supreme Court's decision to overturn the heart of the Defense of Marriage Act would seem to mean that the act's definition of marriage as a man and a woman just went "poof."

The Constitution is pretty clear when it comes to discrimination: Americans are entitled to equal protection, and no citizen can be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

DOMA violated those rules, and deprived a legally-married American citizen, Edith Windsor, of her property - that being the federal estate tax she had to pay when her same-sex spouse died. Something that would NOT have happened had her spouse been male.

But the court didn't use a straightforward constitutional argument.

If it had issued a straightforward ruling that the Defense of Marriage Act violated gay people's rights without due process, and that gay couples were an arbitrarily-targeted group deserving of protection to assure equal treatment - if it had done that, every state law prohibiting gay marriage would've gone poof, and we'd have had an instant national crisis. It would have been another Roe v. Wade, which pre-empted state laws and remains an intense debate to this day.

So the majority came up with the novel logic that in this case, FEDERAL law must conform to STATE law. If a state tells a married couple they're legit, they are; if a state says they're not, they're not.

It's kind of a Gay Missouri Compromise - where for gay people, America has the free states, and the not-so-free states.

I don't think it will lead to the same consequences the Missouri Compromise finally did in 1861, but I am pretty sure it will lead us right back to the Supreme Court.

Exterior photo courtesy The Oregonian by Allison Milligan, via the Associated Press

Read more:
$10 million campaign for marriage equality in all 50 states

Dave Ross, KIRO Radio Morning News Anchor
Dave Ross hosts the Morning News on KIRO Radio weekdays from 5-9 a.m. Dave has won the national Edward R. Murrow Award for writing five times since he started at KIRO Radio in 1978.
Top Stories

  • Trial Beginning
    Twelve Seattle police officers will begin using new body-worn cameras next week

  • Week in Photos
    Penguins, cheetahs and Santa make it in this week's photos
ATTENTION COMMENTERS: We've changed our comments, but want to keep you in the conversation.
Please login below with your Facebook, Twitter, Google+ or Disqus account. Existing MyNorthwest account holders will need to create a new Disqus account or use one of the social logins provided below. Thank you.
comments powered by Disqus
Sign up for breaking news e-mail alerts from
In the community
Do you know an exceptional citizen who has impacted and inspired others?
KIRO Radio and WSECU would like to recognize six oustanding citizens this year. Nominate them to be recognized and to receive a $2,000 charitable grant.