Visualizing The State-By-State Implications Of The DOMA Decision

Tyler Durden's picture

The Supreme Court struck down the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (as we noted here), leaving states to decide on the legality of same-sex marriage. As the infographic below from Bloomberg shows, laws ban same-sex-marriage in 35 states, with five of those allowing civil union or domestic partnerships.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
HelluvaEngineer's picture

Totally. Don't. Care.

TheTmfreak's picture

I'd rather Zerohedge be investigating the statement that Iceland isn't all its cracked up to be. You know... because it keeps being used by anybody and everybody that "its the model" yet Kyle Bass put that notion completely on its head.

I guess I'll have to wait for Yahoo news to cover that one...

CH1's picture

I really don't care.

Let the gay guys do whatever they like, so long as they don't bother anyone. And I am not worried about "the family."

Tyler: I would recommend leaving time-wasting stories to the networks - they specialize in that shit.

TheTmfreak's picture

I mentioned yahoo news in the other post because I've seen yahoo news break financial stories before zerohedge on topics that are Zerohedge's bread and butter, only for Zerohedge a day later to post the same story.

(I love you Tyler, don't get me wrong, but a little constructive criticism I think is warranted)

knukles's picture

The gubamint has no business in the matter. 
Remember, there's that thingamajigiie about "Life , Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness?"

nmewn's picture

On one level its a formal contract (recognized by the state), on another, its a religious union (recognized by the church). What the state says is a contract is one thing, what a church consecrates is another.

Personally, I don't care what the state says anymore.

At the risk of my Life & Liberty, I'm going to pursue my Happiness ;-)

jbvtme's picture

they gave the power to the states.  good news so far

nmewn's picture

From my perspective...its sweat off my

As Engineer says below, its a great wedge issue...only divorce lawyers gain from this one...the implication IS...monogamy...with the full force of the state behind it ;-)

strannick's picture

Does the repudiation of ''traditional'' mean I can now marry my aunt or cat or both?

nmewn's picture

Only to the state and they're working on it...socialist economics is (social engineering, no births/lower births=less future taxation, how does that work?) & societally (you can't bypass nature without consequence) they haven't thought through the implications, I think...unless its gonna be like a "pre-screened" sperm donor (instead of the hobo/addict looking for a buck) ala sperm jobs "saved or created" wondering about post-DOMA mechanics.

But here we're talking about "legality"...soley in the purview of the state.

They wanted "change"...they got it...has no one ever heard of common law "wife"?...sui juris? Like I said elsewhere, more power to em...they ain't gonna like splitting their ass-ets and the lawyers getting half of the whole...BUTT...whatevah ;-)

SafelyGraze's picture

here is the primary source that the supreme court consulted as it deliberated

spoiler: it's just chapter 29


Deo vindice's picture

I'm surprised, (but probably shouldn't be), that so many of the very posters on ZH who are absolutely adamant on the issue of (lack of) morals within the banking industry don't care about the morals of society as a whole.

If there was one group of folks I would have thought had the capacity to put the dots together, it would be the crowd on this board.

The banking crooks are but a microcosm of society at large. Sodomites can be sodomites if they want, but they have no more right to force a redefinition of what constitutes marriage and family, than the fiat crooks have to redefine what is real money.

Do the same guys who are defending gold as real money with a 6,000 +/- year history, really think that it doesn't matter if a radical segment of the population want to redefine what makes a family and what constitutes marriage with an equally-long history?

You can't draw pure water from a stagnant well anymore than you can hope to draw 'good bankers / politicians, etc out of a moral cesspool of society.

History has plenty of examples to show that the demise and downfall of a society starts with its morals being diluted before its money is.

Boris Alatovkrap's picture

In Russia, is no gayness, not even to talk about. Boris is not to understand Amerika pre-occupation for boy love. How do you say, "yuck"?

Silver Bully's picture

'If there was one group of folks I would have thought had the capacity to put the dots together, it would be the crowd on this board.'


Don't be surprised. Many here think they're part of the 'in' crowd by being contrarians, gold bugs, libertarians, Paul supporters, Randians, etc. But trying to be 'in' this way is no different than those who support gay marriage because it is also the 'in' thing to do. For these, intelligence has nothing to do with it. Being part of exclusive group is all it is for many people here.

This would be why so many don't connect the importance of personal morals with the decline in trust of our government, our money supply, and our country. It should be obvious (and perhaps for many, it used to be), but these days far too many have lost sight of it.

Turn yourselves around. Get right with God. Then you can get the money, the power, and the leadership turned around. Until then, the country will continue 'going down the wrong path.'

Boris Alatovkrap's picture

You are forget some are visit to ZH because extreme dislike of shrubbery.

Deo vindice's picture

Men hate God for the same reason that men hate gold. Both are a restraint on their excesses.

One restrains them in the realm of morals. The other restrians them in the realm of money.

nmewn's picture

I think you may be reading me wrong.

Let me try and explain my position again, one of the principles of this nations founding (the federal-central government) is the separation of church & state.

That is to say, something can easily be legal...yet immoral. There are many examples, generation upon generation of public assistance is, immoral, it is bondage/slavery. Bailing out corporations with public monies is, immoral, it is theft...I could keep going but you get my drift.

Having said that, I have no desire to live in a theocracy just as I have no desire to live in a totalitarian state that will at some point say my pronouncement of someone (or something) as being immoral is hate speech, thereby a punishable offense. The act of marriage (as a moral institution, consecrated by the church, for the benefit of all society and future generations) was bastardized by the federal government long ago, not this week, by the preferential treatment of it in the tax code, instead of what it is.

And a prediction, this precedent will be used by the enemies of all religions via the federal tax code...another reason to abolish the current tax code. 

Lost Word's picture

Who gets to decide what shall be the Laws?  God? Kings? Legislators? People?

Majority or Minority?

It seems that the Supreme Court has voted for Legal Anarchy, in which any minority opinion is Legal, because a small number of Judges say so. A minority opinion becoming Legal soon becomes any individual opinion becoming Legal.

After there is Legal Anarchy, there will be Social Anarchy.

How will the Financial world function in Legal and Social Anarchy?

Thus the connection to ZH.


nmewn's picture

It seems, we can't escape what we will be settled again, for a generation or so perhaps...then the cycle will repeat.

As far as mans law, it invariably tracks popular opinion (usually manufactured popular opinion these days) instead of predicated on the wisdom of right & wrong.

Just realize when you step outside of "the consent to be governed by fools" you will be branded as a heretic & a criminal for that action.

But also realize, you'll be among friends ;-)

gwar5's picture

Of course, especially if your cat is also your Aunt. The bigger the freakshow the more you'll be loved and admired.

Totentänzerlied's picture

Actually it's a cultural institution which most definitely exists in societies which have nothing westerners would call a religion, and has existed in western societies far longer than organized religions have.

Of course this is a straw-man. Marriage is actually just a type of semi-formal social relationship which furthers social stability/cohesion. It really doesn't even have anything to do with comparative advantage in reproductive outcomes, as one look at the kin structures and child-rearing practices of any so-called primitive culture shows.

But thanks for playing.

gwar5's picture

You're totally full of shit and it shows.


Vows of chastitiy and marriage have been very serious matters in society over 5 mellenia because of the risk of venereal diseases for which there was no known cause or cure until the last 150 and 100 years, respectively. Gonorrhea and Syphilis were the equivalent of AIDS for thousands of years until recently with antibiotics. Women were damaged goods if she was not a virgin because of the risk of disease and the uncertain paternity of children.

As ever, the best looking women got the men who proved clever or strong enough to have the biggest house and the most shit, potentially supporting the most children, same as it ever was. Just like the alpa males in a wolf pack, or males of a lion pride that control more territory over the neighboring prides.

Cathartes Aura's picture

while I get the "uncertain paternity" idea, surely men were / are at "risk of disease" as well, through sexual exploits?  women would get the diseases via having sex with a carrier, no?  promiscuity swings both ways - but apparently the "vows of chastity" don't. . . wonder why that is.

G-R-U-N-T's picture

Indeed, knuckles. They concocted a brand new right under the 5th Amendment, kinda like Justice Roberts inventing a new tax for Obamacare.

Justice Kennedy actually assumed that those who opposed the decision are bigots. What they have done, in reality, is change the nature of marriage while doing nothing more than perverting the Constitution. Federalism has risen to a beast beyond anyone could have imagined, especially in America.

Like the so called Immigration reform, Obamacare, a power grab by the liberals on the court. These are activists justices, whom are just 5 people shaping state policy while demeaning the rights of the people in each State to decide for themselves.  They have forsaken the rule of law that the Constitution and Bill of Rights provide the individual. As time goes on all three branches will legally criminalize more and more of it's citizens, creating economic slaves to feed their bureaucratic beast. Since we have a cabal turning against it's own citizens and the NSA data mining, not for terrorism, as the naive and ignorant believe, they will have all the information needed to confiscate wealth, which is it's primary motive to stay in power and control. If you expect change, it aint going to happen. As private cash runs out to pay taxes they will confiscate your assets. Multitudes of economic disasters will bring American to it's knees, recognizing that Statism end result is dictatorship and destruction. There has to be enough economic pain manufactured by these idiot politicians, justices and the executive to the people in order to effect change.

We don't have a government that is “government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”-Lincoln

What we morphed into is a government that does things to it's people!

CheapBastard's picture

The justices are saying we all should be treated "equally" does this mean they will eliminate those boxes, "Caucasian, Asian, Hispanic, and so on," for college admissions?

Midas's picture

Some animals are more equal than others.

pods's picture

If you can kindly show me where in the constitution we gave the federal government the power to legislate on this topic I would be satisfied.

As for "they concocted a brand new right under the 5th amendment,"  they did no such thing.

Probably the greatest flaw in the constitution is the whole idea of enumerated rights.  

We should have stuck with it simply being a framework for the federal government to function, and have kept out the whole idea of declaring rights on paper.

There were even arguments in the federalist papers, as I recall by Hamilton (delicious irony), that having a bill of rights would allow the government to infer rights not declared did not exist.

Hence we have the 9th and 10th amendments.

Further, since so many are brainwashed into thinking priviledges are in fact rights (ex. right to vote) I say we collapse the whole thing and rethink the entire idea of positive government.



G-R-U-N-T's picture

Pods....Do you really think after this ruling that the 9th and 10th Amendment will have a wave of precedence as States become more and more beholden to Federalism?  Look at Proposition 8 in Kalifornia, if the left doesn't like the decision the people made they will litigate all the way to the Supreme Court and the activists got their way. You see if the left doesn't like what isn't in their best interest they will get activists judges to pervert law. The Feds have imposed their will upon the greater interests of the people.

The way Statism has infiltrated all 3 branches and with Democrats bribing their people with benefits, entiltements and other goodies, I don't see their is much hope

Marriage for the purpose of federal law, enough said.

A Nanny Moose's picture

Indeed. How does the GOP compete with Satan Claus?

Dr. Sandi's picture

I'd suggest the GOP put together a hostile takeover of the North Pole, all properties affixed thereto as well as the livestock (reindeer). Whether those pesky elves are property or citizens would rightly be decided in a different jurisdiction.

With that kind of business climate, old Satan Claus would soon snap into line or find himself making all his toys for the new Chinese overlords.

McMolotov's picture

All I know is that the reaction among many self-professed "limited government" folks to this DOMA shit is disturbing to say the least. It has me wondering if the only thing holding them back from having sex with their dogs/cats/moms/sisters/couches/etc. was a fucking law. Why do I say this?

Because their immediate response has been to suggest that a single supreme court ruling will unleash upon this land a flood of bestiality and incest. As such, I'm forced to wonder about their own personal sexual proclivities as well as their commitment to limited government.

People either want liberty or they don't. There isn't really an in-between. I've taught my kids from an early age that they're not going to agree with everyone they meet, but as long as they're not being harmed, they have no right to impose their will upon others — especially through government force.

This is one of those issues that the people behind the scenes relish because it diverts the public's attention from the truly important matters. As I see it, too many people are unwittingly playing right into their oppressors' hands.

G-R-U-N-T's picture

"Because their immediate response has been to suggest that a single supreme court ruling will unleash upon this land a flood of bestiality and incest."

I would be very suspicious the next time you bend over McMolotov, because all three branches are sticking their Statist agenda up every average individual, liberty, privacy and freedom loving American ars.

Behold the image:

MeelionDollerBogus's picture

for the sole purpose of outing statist fucks posing as "conservatives" or "libertarians" I am glad these articles came out.
Some I've been unsure of from less pushy comments but now I know for sure who's an asshole bible banger, an asshole statist or just a plain asshole and for any other topic felt a need to hide it - but not on this.

Dr. Sandi's picture

Put me down as just a plain asshole. Although I sometimes like to roll in powdered sugar and those little candy things.

shovelhead's picture

I'm disturbed that I find that image arousing...

SmackDaddy's picture

They have the liberty to do whatever the fuck they want.  But two faggots playing house does not a marriage make.  This is just a way for working faggots to get their non-working faggot boyfriend benefits.... Oh and Christians, hold you applause.  I fucking hate you too.

Totentänzerlied's picture

Really? You'd be ethically satisfied if a piece of paper written by slave owning aristocrats-turned-oligarchs, over 200 years ago, said it was okay for the state, via the government, by way of legislation, to infringe on the natural, inalienable rights of some subpopulation over which it claims sovereignty?

That's some seriously perverted moral logic. Individual liberty counts for nothing if it exists in a society where morality is dictated, coerced, and enforced.

If we are to believe the quasi-mythological hagiography that passes for the official history of this country's political founding, the founders attempted to give a brutally conformist, openly authoritarian, deeply religious society individual liberty. Why would anyone do something so futile? It was self-contradictory then as Chinese democracy is now.

G-R-U-N-T's picture

Just a follow up comment to my previous comment. What they have done is further adulterate our Nation, pun intended!

dark pools of soros's picture

them and yajooo are pretty much the same these days if you haven't noticed

GMadScientist's picture

"but a little constructive criticism I think is warranted" - TheTmFreak

I'm glad you feel that way.

""You have a roach motel of a country; the New York Times and Krugman saying it's "The Model"; but they still haven't addressed the problem of their debt."

Chuck Walla's picture

Depending- Bullish on wedding gowns or anal tightening surgery.


Room 101's picture

Exactly TMFREAK.  Why would I give even half a shit whether people who want to buttfuck each other can get a marriage license or not?  Please Tyler: leave this garbage to the corporate media shills.  

noless's picture

The only logical reason for gays to marry has to do with life decisions in hospital, or during estate proceedings, or that of child custody. So that the will of those involved is respected by the law instead of their family who may or may not have disowned them, only to later reap the profit of their lifes work.

I don't personally support any state sanctioned or mandated marriage, but from a documentation and will perspective, as the state mandates, it is a significant issue.

Can you imagine a parent or relative you were on bad terms with since you were a child suddenly coming into your life when you were on your death bed, or gone, demanding that what you left to your wife and children was theirs, because your relationship was illegitimate?

I know this is a thorny issue, but seriously, people have the right to determine for themselves what they deem appropriate for themselves their partners and their heirs.

I am generally in the traditional camp when it comes to issues like this, but i feel the argument should be heard. People deserve the right to live their lives as they see fit as long as they aren't harming others., end of story.

And yes ladies, still single as fuck.

Personally, i think this is all a bullshit smoke screen, and the fed gov should stay the fuck out of it, but theoretically and philosophically i have to err on the side of gays on this one, even though i view it as entirely counter productive.

It's cool though, soon enough i won't offend anyone by calling thus cursory in comparison to issues we as a nation face.. Right?

Midas's picture

I do know BHOBama is more than happy to have everyone talking about homos, abortions, sandra fluke, ed snowden, or anything else, as long as they don't talk about the ecomony. It's broke and it ain't getting fixed while Barry is in office.

jwoop66's picture

Exactly. If it weren't for the current tax scheme, this shit would be irrelevent.  The govt would have no reason to be involved.  The gays who really cared about it, would come up with their own name for their commited relationships. There would be no politicians to shove this nonsense down our throats as a diversion/fund raising tactic because there would be no money or power attached to it.

Perfect example of what happens when the govt gets involved...  


How did all this start?  the govt gave tax advantages to married couples?   Now look what it turned into...

Kirk2NCC1701's picture

Let me explain it for the Gammas. I promise to write slowly, so you can keep up:

The real purpose is so that the dildo wearers and fudge packers can ADOPT. Savvy?

And TPTB don't really care about you, as long as you Animals -- which is what you are to them -- can be bred, sheared and slaughtered. They want a strong Elite, not a strong nation.

Shag on, sheep shaggers. /s

tarsubil's picture

Yeah, what the hell happened with that? Who cares about this supreme court circus?

Pool Shark's picture



Debased currency? Check.

Politics is road to personal wealth? Check.

Endemic political corruption? Check.

Continuous war? Check.

Collapse of the middle class?

Rampant sexual deviancy/homosexuality? Check.


We. Are. Ancient. Rome...


HelluvaEngineer's picture

You do realize...even if they don't get married, they will still have teh butsecks?  So while I agree with you, this has no impact on your comment, and ZH'ers should band together and ignore these wedge issues.