Page:United States v. Windsor.pdf/4

4 Rh   of the States.

DOMA's history of enactment and its own text demonstrate that interference with the equal dignity of same-sex marriages, conferred by the States in the exercise of their sovereign power, was more than an incidental effect of the federal statute. It was its essence. BLAG's arguments are just as candid about the congressional purpose. DOMA's operation in practice confirms this purpose. It frustrates New York's objective of eliminating inequality by writing inequality into the entire United States Code.

DOMA's principal effect is to identify and make unequal a subset of state-sanctioned marriages. It contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State, but not others, of both rights and responsibilities, creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State. It also forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect. Pp. 20–26. 

699 F.3d 169, affirmed.

, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which, , , and , JJ., joined. , C.J., filed a dissenting opinion. , J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which, J., joined, and in which , C.J., joined as to Part I. , J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which , J., joined as to Parts II and III.