DOMA Section 3 OVERTURNED!!! The Supreme Court Did It!!! But Do State Refusals to Recognize Same-Sex Marriage Remain?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2013 2:16 PM GMT
    In a landmark ruling for gay rights, the Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, the 1996 law blocking federal recognition of same-sex marriages.

    The decision was 5-4, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy.


    http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/26/19151971-supreme-court-strikes-down-defense-of-marriage-act?lite
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2013 2:20 PM GMT
    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-rules-gay-marriage-cases/story?id=19492896#.Ucr4dRby9UQ
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2013 2:26 PM GMT
    As anticipated it was close, with the 4 Conservatives voting in the minority to retain DOMA. But now I'm reading that maybe the entire Act wasn't struck down, but just the Federal recognition portion, meaning individual States can still refuse to recognize gay marriage from other States? Because that's how the case was brought, as a matter of Federal benefits, and the Court evidently didn't strike down the entire Act, just that aspect. Gotta follow this, watch the analysis.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2013 2:31 PM GMT
    I'm glad that this disastrous and unconstitutional law (or at least some parts of it) signed by President Bill Clinton in the 1990s is now voided.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2013 2:50 PM GMT
    In related news, the Supreme Court declined to hear the Prop 8 challenge. Meaning that a California District Court Decision overturning Prop 8 stands, and same-sex marriages may resume there. Early word is that the the US Court deemed the plaintiffs who were appealing the Prop 8 defeat had no standing to do so.

    And now this:

    On proposition 8, the court avoided making a sweeping decision on the constitutionality of gay marriage restrictions, but dismissed the case by saying that the parties defending proposition 8 did not have the right to appeal the lower court's ruling.

    The case concerned a challenge to the controversial California ballot initiative passed in 2008 that defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

    Because California officials declined to defend the law in Court, lawyers for the original sponsors of the initiative--a group called Protectmarriage.com--stepped in to do so. Lawyer Charles J. Cooper argued that Californians who voted in favor of Prop 8 opted "in good faith" to preserve the traditional definition of marriage because they believe it continues to meaningfully serve important societal interests.

    Chief Justice John Roberts read the court's opinion dismissing the Proposition 8 case on the basis that the "petitioners did not have standing to appeal the District Court's order."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2013 3:07 PM GMT
    ihateyoutoo saidthe court decision pretty much allowed states to define marriage which fucking sucks. california is good BUT what about us here in new fucking jersey or worst off, states with bans against same sex marriage like north carolina. i'm trying to get married in my 30s, fuck my 40s. i'm trying to retire @ in my 40s.

    Do as our best friends did - get married in a State that doesn't have a residency requirement. Then you'll at least have the Federal benefits, like Social Security, and can file joint Federal income taxes. Your marriage won't be recognized in many States, but it's better than nothing.

    And I think the next step is a case that challenges State bans against recognizing marriages from other States. That wasn't in the case brought before the court, just Federal benefits, and while the Court might have struck down all of DOMA, it didn't, just Section 3 of DOMA concerning Federal benefits. But the matter of the "good faith and credit" clause in the Constitution must eventually be decided, that requires States to recognize each other's laws.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2013 3:18 PM GMT
    Some analysis, focusing on the discrimination issue in the Court's ruling. Which may have broader favorable implications for other gay rights cases.

    Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2013 3:30 PM GMT
    Broseph said
    ihateyoutoo saidthe court decision pretty much allowed states to define marriage which fucking sucks. california is good BUT what about us here in new fucking jersey or worst off, states with bans against same sex marriage like north carolina. i'm trying to get married in my 30s, fuck my 40s. i'm trying to retire @ in my 40s.


    I'm moving from NC to TX soon. Mmmm... bleak :/

    There will be a lot more litigation to come. Count on it.

    Are you married now? Get married if you can, and start getting the Federal benefits right now. And when you do move to a State that recognizes same-sex marriage, and if the rest of DOMA gets struck down, meaning that all States must honor same-sex marriage even if they won't perform it themselves, you'll automatically get those State benefits, too.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2013 3:55 PM GMT
    Among the Federal changes that will go into effect with this ruling are those dealing with military spouses, a subject especially meaningful to me. It means:

    - A legally married spouse of an active US service member will now be entitled to live in military family housing.
    - They are automatic beneficiaries of the military life insurance policy.
    - They are entitled to pension and survivor benefits of a deceased spouse.
    - They receive medical care at military facilities.
    - They get a government ID card, and can shop in commissaries and exchanges.
    - They can enter military installations freely, without needing authorization on each occasion (varies with the base security level).
    - They can attend social functions that admit spouses.
    - Their personal transportation and shipment of household goods is now free, when their military spouse is reassigned to a new location.
    - They may be married in a military chapel (although Republicans have attempted other legislation to separately prevent that).
    - The military spouse sees upgrades to housing, principally in square footage allowance, number of rooms, or housing allowance payments if living off-post (off-base). And depending upon rank, the difference between receiving family housing at all, or being required to live in single "bachelor's" quarters, which can range from a barracks setting to a very small apartment.
    - And many other benefits & advantages I don't recall off the top of my head.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2013 3:58 PM GMT
    ART_DECO said
    ihateyoutoo saidthe court decision pretty much allowed states to define marriage which fucking sucks. california is good BUT what about us here in new fucking jersey or worst off, states with bans against same sex marriage like north carolina. i'm trying to get married in my 30s, fuck my 40s. i'm trying to retire @ in my 40s.

    Do as our best friends did - get married in a State that doesn't have a residency requirement. Then you'll at least have the Federal benefits, like Social Security, and can file joint Federal income taxes. Your marriage won't be recognized in many States, but it's better than nothing.


    I could be wrong, but I think that whether you are married for federal tax purposes will probably be determined by your jurisdiction of residence, not where you got married. Which is the primary reason we will have to decide whether to move from VA to DC or MD....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2013 4:05 PM GMT
    ihateyoutoo saidthe court decision pretty much allowed states to define marriage which fucking sucks.


    Why? This is the same position that President Obama adopted one year ago when he "evolved" to the position that same sex marriage is a matter that should be "decided by each individual state."

    So, if President Obama - who is "for the gays" - has adopted such a viewpoint, then that viewpoint is a good one.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2013 4:09 PM GMT
    showme said
    I could be wrong, but I think that whether you are married for federal tax purposes will probably be determined by your jurisdiction of residence, not where you got married. Which is the primary reason we will have to decide whether to move from VA to DC or MD....

    I'm not sure, I'd have to ask our gay friends who live here in Florida but are married elsewhere, what their understanding is. I don't know if this situation has been encountered before, since this is the first time gay spouses can file joint Federal income taxes at all, anywhere.

    I wonder how Texas law, for instance, can influence Federal law in the paying of Federal taxes. If Texas makes a difference for Federal taxes, then what about Social Security, and the other 1100 Federal benefits previously denied to same-sex couples? I thought I heard the analysts saying all of these, and joint tax filing, were now possible. But you're saying only when residing in the State of their legal marriage?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2013 4:11 PM GMT
    ART_DECO said
    showme said
    I could be wrong, but I think that whether you are married for federal tax purposes will probably be determined by your jurisdiction of residence, not where you got married. Which is the primary reason we will have to decide whether to move from VA to DC or MD....

    I'm not sure, I'd have to ask our gay friends who live here in Florida but are married elsewhere, what their understanding is. I don't know if this situation has been encountered before, since this is the first time gay spouses can file joint Federal income taxes at all, anywhere.

    I wonder how Texas law, for instance, can influence Federal law in the paying of Federal taxes. If Texas makes a difference for Federal taxes, then what about Social Security, and the other 1100 Federal benefits previously denied to same-sex couples? I thought I heard the analysts saying all of these, and joint tax filing, were now possible. But you're saying only when residing in the State of their legal marriage?


    But only if you're legally married, which you wouldn't be in Texas. The decision rested in large part on the Court's traditionsl deference to states' determinations of what "marriage" is.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2013 4:12 PM GMT
    chefBH said
    ihateyoutoo saidthe court decision pretty much allowed states to define marriage which fucking sucks.


    Why? This is the same position that President Obama adopted one year ago when he "evolved" to the position that same sex marriage is a matter that should be "decided by each individual state."

    So, if President Obama - who is "for the gays" - has adopted such a viewpoint, then that viewpoint is a good one.


    Stop trolling today sockpuppet.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2013 4:15 PM GMT
    Congratulations !!!

    You clearly won about 75% of your battle today.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2013 4:17 PM GMT
    ART_DECO said
    showme said
    I could be wrong, but I think that whether you are married for federal tax purposes will probably be determined by your jurisdiction of residence, not where you got married. Which is the primary reason we will have to decide whether to move from VA to DC or MD....

    I'm not sure, I'd have to ask our gay friends who live here in Florida but are married elsewhere, what their understanding is. I don't know if this situation has been encountered before, since this is the first time gay spouses can file joint Federal income taxes at all, anywhere.

    I wonder how Texas law, for instance, can influence Federal law in the paying of Federal taxes. If Texas makes a difference for Federal taxes, then what about Social Security, and the other 1100 Federal benefits previously denied to same-sex couples? I thought I heard the analysts saying all of these, and joint tax filing, were now possible. But you're saying only when residing in the State of their legal marriage?


    Very good question.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2013 4:18 PM GMT
    showme: OK, I just read this analysis, and you are partly correct about some Federal benefits, an inconsistent patchwork that sometimes relies on State of residence, and sometimes not.

    I amended this, because I initially thought the link below said the IRS would allow joint filing in all States, but not estate tax exemption. But the wording is confusing, just a reporter's words, not a good basis. Still, an interesting article, showing that State of residence is indeed an issue, but legally I don't see why it should be, the Federal government taking precedent. Perhaps politicians from the States wrote the Federal law that way.

    http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/26/19100907-gay-couples-stand-to-receive-thousands-of-benefits-in-wake-of-doma-decision?lite
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2013 4:31 PM GMT
    ART_DECO saidshowme: OK, I just read this analysis, and you are partly correct about some Federal benefits, an inconsistent patchwork that sometimes relies on State of residence, and sometimes not.

    I amended this, because I initially thought the link below said the IRS would allow joint filing in all States, but not estate tax exemption. But the wording is confusing, just a reporter's words, not a good basis. Still, an interesting article, showing that State of residence is indeed an issue, but legally I don't see why it should be, the Federal government taking precedent. Perhaps politicians from the States wrote the Federal law that way.

    http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/26/19100907-gay-couples-stand-to-receive-thousands-of-benefits-in-wake-of-doma-decision?lite


    Estate tax exemption is a huge part of what needed to be done. I initially thought this would take care of that?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2013 5:04 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    ART_DECO saidshowme: OK, I just read this analysis, and you are partly correct about some Federal benefits, an inconsistent patchwork that sometimes relies on State of residence, and sometimes not.

    I amended this, because I initially thought the link below said the IRS would allow joint filing in all States, but not estate tax exemption. But the wording is confusing, just a reporter's words, not a good basis. Still, an interesting article, showing that State of residence is indeed an issue, but legally I don't see why it should be, the Federal government taking precedent. Perhaps politicians from the States wrote the Federal law that way.

    http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/26/19100907-gay-couples-stand-to-receive-thousands-of-benefits-in-wake-of-doma-decision?lite


    Estate tax exemption is a huge part of what needed to be done. I initially thought this would take care of that?

    There appears some question as to whether IRS estate tax exemption will only apply to married same-sex couples who live in same-sex marriage States. Estate taxes is what brought this case to the Supreme Court, but New York where the plaintiff lives does allow gay marriage. So the precedent the plaintiff established here with this ruling today may only apply to 12 States and DC.
  • Kazachok

    Posts: 415

    Jun 26, 2013 5:10 PM GMT
    So about the states "refusing to recognize" same-sex marriages. Can someone explain that? Why would they be able to disobey the federal government? Or is it that because its overturned in the court, that they're going to take a stand against it? I'm just confused.
  • MarvelBoy23

    Posts: 279

    Jun 26, 2013 5:17 PM GMT
    It's even more muddied here in Illinois. As I was married in Iowa, and shortly after, IL started recognizing civil unions. I read in an article a couple years ago (And now can't find the article) that IL would recognize my "marriage" as a civil union, but I am very unclear if that will then be recognized under federal law!

    While this is a huge step in the right direction, the ruling has left us with even more questions than there were prior!

    Here's hoping this progresses quickly now, and that we can have equal rights in all states!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2013 5:20 PM GMT
    Happy Happy Day! icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2013 5:38 PM GMT
    ART_DECO said
    freedomisntfree said
    ART_DECO saidshowme: OK, I just read this analysis, and you are partly correct about some Federal benefits, an inconsistent patchwork that sometimes relies on State of residence, and sometimes not.

    I amended this, because I initially thought the link below said the IRS would allow joint filing in all States, but not estate tax exemption. But the wording is confusing, just a reporter's words, not a good basis. Still, an interesting article, showing that State of residence is indeed an issue, but legally I don't see why it should be, the Federal government taking precedent. Perhaps politicians from the States wrote the Federal law that way.

    http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/26/19100907-gay-couples-stand-to-receive-thousands-of-benefits-in-wake-of-doma-decision?lite


    Estate tax exemption is a huge part of what needed to be done. I initially thought this would take care of that?

    There appears some question as to whether IRS estate tax exemption will only apply to married same-sex couples who live in same-sex marriage States. Estate taxes is what brought this case to the Supreme Court, but New York where the plaintiff lives does allow gay marriage. So the precedent the plaintiff established here with this ruling today may only apply to 12 States and DC.


    Need another case to come forward to SCOTUS from a non-homosexual marriage state. That will finally take care of it.

    And again ... my hearty congrats (from a true blue right winger)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2013 5:42 PM GMT
    New Jersey!! Lets find a few couples to file! Anyone? Buehler?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2013 5:42 PM GMT
    ART_DECO saidAmong the Federal changes that will go into effect with this ruling are those dealing with military spouses, a subject especially meaningful to me. It means:

    - A legally married spouse of an active US service member will now be entitled to live in military family housing.
    - They are automatic beneficiaries of the military life insurance policy.
    - They are entitled to pension and survivor benefits of a deceased spouse.
    - They receive medical care at military facilities.
    - They get a government ID card, and can shop in commissaries and exchanges.
    - They can enter military installations freely, without needing authorization on each occasion (varies with the base security level).
    - They can attend social functions that admit spouses.
    - Their personal transportation and shipment of household goods is now free, when their military spouse is reassigned to a new location.
    - They may be married in a military chapel (although Republicans have attempted other legislation to separately prevent that).
    - The military spouse sees upgrades to housing, principally in square footage allowance, number of rooms, or housing allowance payments if living off-post (off-base). And depending upon rank, the difference between receiving family housing at all, or being required to live in single "bachelor's" quarters, which can range from a barracks setting to a very small apartment.
    - And many other benefits & advantages I don't recall off the top of my head.


    Given the number of military bases throughout the US, this could throw up some interesting complications. In those states where same sex marriage is not recognised, could the presence of resident married same sex servicemembers and their dependants force states to recognise same sex marriage?