SCOTUS struck down DOMA

[Oldgamer]

Soooo... I am trying to understand this. If a couple gets married in a state where it is legal and recognized, then say, moves to a state like Texas where it is not, do they still get the Federal protections?? How does this work now?

 

[Jaskalas]

Imagine what the outcomes would have been if Obama had not been president to appoint Kagan and Sotomayer...

Elections have far reaching consequences.......

The court is always used as fuel for partisanship in this country. If you don't vote for your team, the court and the country is lost! Keeps the good voters voting, so the TSA, NSA, IRS, etc can get away with murder - you'll still back their supporters to "save" the court from the "enemy".

 

[Wreckem]

yea, it looks like the SCOTUS punted again.. they basically said that the cases in Prop 8 were not given a "legal standing" and were discrminated against, but they were sly as to not include any statements for other states.

Again, they took a safe route, and punted it seems. Amazing, now I want to read the dissents to see what they say.

Given that the Prop 8 case wasn't a class action, I am wondering if they could argue the district court decision only applies to the two couples?

No. The district courts ruling was very broad and sweeping. The 9th rangled it in a little bit. Prop 8 was ruled unconstititional at the district court level. And based on today'a ruling the only people that can challenge that ruling is the govt of CA which more or less makes the broadly sweeping district court binding on CA but no one else because its not going to be challenge by CA.

 

[shadow9d9]

EDIT: So the purpose of SSM is to force your views on others. So much for not affecting other people huh?



No it has always been between at least one man and one woman.

But putting aside shall we say non-recent western history it has always been between a man and a woman. The only way you can say that redefining it as between 2 people is not changing the definition is if you don't understand men and women are different.

I guess I am colorblind to the genders when it comes to marriage. No one is changing YOUR marriage, therefore you cannot possible say someone is forcing anything on you.

 

[irishScott]

You don't typically marry your children. And I believe that your children do have to pay inheritance taxes.

Depends on the state IIRC, but I could be wrong.

 

[Jaskalas]

Soooo... I am trying to understand this. If a couple gets married in a state where it is legal and recognized, then say, moves to a state like Texas where it is not, do they still get the Federal protections?? How does this work now?

Can you live in TX, go on vacation to CA, get married and return to TX to receive benefits?

 

[werepossum]

I am amzed they didn't punt this issue to the states also since that has been their strategy on every other type decision recently.

I'm assuming that's because of the equal protection conflict. If they strike down DOMA strictly on 10th Amendment grounds, then states are free to make their own discriminatory laws. If they strike down DOMA mostly on 14th Amendment grounds, then states are not free to make their own discriminatory laws. Hopefully this ends the entire debate, but either way it's a very good ruling.

lol, I wonder about the timing of these two rulings. They strike down article 4 of the voting rights, which a lot of people hate, just in time to strike down DOMA, which said demographic will praise. Flips the near total neutral-negative coverage from the former into near total neutral-positive coverage.

Not that SCOTUS has to care about public opinion.

That is an interesting aspect. If intentional, it's bloody brilliant as it neatly shuts down judicial activism arguments from both sides.

 

[nageov3t]

Soooo... I am trying to understand this. If a couple gets married in a state where it is legal and recognized, then say, moves to a state like Texas where it is not, do they still get the Federal protections?? How does this work now?

I would assume, federal benefits yes, state benefits no.

 

[fskimospy]

Can you live in TX, go on vacation to CA, get married and return to TX to receive benefits?

If you have a valid marriage license issued by any state you are eligible for federal benefits regardless of your state of current residence.

 

[zinfamous]

Because to believe in SSM you have to believe in the perversion that marriage is just a contract to extort government benefits.

can't get married without a license.

what else you got?

 

[soulcougher73]

You don't typically marry your children. And I believe that your children do have to pay inheritance taxes.



Its not interesting at all. Its obvious. If marriage is just a contract to extort benefits from the government why would you expect to sign such a contract before getting married?

Can you please elaberate on what benefits i can extort from the govenment please? Maybe a nice list or website showing me each and every benefit i get?

Im married and i dont get shit, so im thinking im doing something wrong here. Or you are full of shit, one or the other.

 

[LightPattern]

I technically support same-sex marriage, but my case is based on my belief that there shouldn't be a legal definition of marriage in the first place. Any two consenting adults engaged in a life-long romantic relationship should be entitled to the status of "civil union", regardless of gender or sexual persuasion. Leave it to the churches, individuals and other moral authorities to decide what a "marriage" is or isn't.

Fully agree with this.

I don't see a problem with the word marriage. It has been used in a civil sense since forever. People have been able to get married by their local government without any religion involved since forever. The argument that government should call it 'civil unions' and reserve 'marriage' for religion really rings of a scorched earth style argument of 'if we can't have it alone, no one can have it'.

Marriage (and Marrying) is widely used as a word for mating two distinctly different things.
Marrying a PCI card to a PCI slot. Marrying a slotted piece of wood into another piece of wood with a slot cut into it.

Marriage has been accepted across multiple societies for thousands of years to mean a union between sexes, not a union among the same sex.

It bridges the sexual divide between males & females.

 

[werepossum]

Soooo... I am trying to understand this. If a couple gets married in a state where it is legal and recognized, then say, moves to a state like Texas where it is not, do they still get the Federal protections?? How does this work now?

DOMA was specifically short-circuiting the 10th Amendment, so I'm assuming yes. If you are legally married, then your state must recognize your marriage and the federal government must protect your rights if the state infringes. It's not absolute, of course; if one makes a contract in North Dakota, California is still free to not allow clauses contrary to its laws, subject to equal protection and other Constitutional and federal requirements But California cannot deny you have a marriage, nor deny you benefits that other married couples get. Broadly speaking, states can provide individuals more rights or more protection, but not less.

 

[zinfamous]

That is an interesting aspect. If intentional, it's bloody brilliant as it neatly shuts down judicial activism arguments from both sides.

at least, it shows that this court is willing to rule based on various political spectrums. I think it's a good thing, overall--but Citizen's United still burns. I think it will stain this court for some time.


anyway, I don't see DOMA ruling being outright praised by those that are hurt over the Voting Rights Act ruling yesterday. Remember, African Americans tend to be very conservative socially and want even less to do with gay marriage than does a guy like Glenn Beck.

From the general "liberal" perspective, there is an up and down for sure; but yesterday's ruling only hurts minority groups--and this will be funny in a few decades when white boy is the minority group.
I wonder how republicans will feel a few decades out when their polling places get moved out of their neighborhoods, as is standard practice today (well,the attempt to do this has been standard practice in redneck land, but always struck down thanks to the VRA--well, not anymore!).

 

[soulcougher73]

EDIT: So the purpose of SSM is to force your views on others. So much for not affecting other people huh?

Pot meet kettle? Isnt that what weve been doing all throughout history? Forcing hetro views of marriage onto others. If someone has a SSM how does that affect you? Or are you just upset your side is losing once again and you cant dictate your views onto them anymore?

 

[nehalem256]

Pot meet kettle? Isnt that what weve been doing all throughout history? Forcing hetro views of marriage onto others.

If someone has a SSM how does that affect you? Or are you just upset your side is losing once again and you cant dictate your views onto them anymore?

in its current form, civil unions have been shown to be separate-but-not-equal, as people like insurance companies will grasp onto any loophole to deny coverage if, say, they only grant spousal benefits to "married" couples.

Also see the Washington state florist.

 

[soulcougher73]

Also see the Washington state florist.

Ok, so you got nothing. What i figured.

 

[nehalem256]

I guess I am colorblind to the genders when it comes to marriage. No one is changing YOUR marriage, therefore you cannot possible say someone is forcing anything on you.

Tell that to the Washington Florist being sued by the state AG...

When did I ever say it was about changing my marriage? That is a liberal created strawman.

It is about perverting marriage to be nothing more than a contract to extort benefits from the government. The existence of such an idea being an obvious absurdity.

 

[nehalem256]

Ok, so you got nothing. What i figured.

Did you miss the Washington florist being sued because she refused to support SSM. Seems to me like she is being affected.

 

[nageov3t]

Did you miss the Washington florist being sued because she refused to support SSM. Seems to me like she is being affected.

responding to a troll.... but, she was sued because she was accused (by the state AG) of violating Washington state's consumer protection laws.

personally, I disagree with that and think that anyone should be entitled to refuse to engage in business with whomever, but it's not really relevant to this DOMA discussion as its a state law.

 

[werepossum]

at least, it shows that this court is willing to rule based on various political spectrums. I think it's a good thing, overall--but Citizen's United still burns. I think it will stain this court for some time.


anyway, I don't see DOMA ruling being outright praised by those that are hurt over the Voting Rights Act ruling yesterday. Remember, African Americans tend to be very conservative socially and want even less to do with gay marriage than does a guy like Glenn Beck.

From the general "liberal" perspective, there is an up and down for sure; but yesterday's ruling only hurts minority groups--and this will be funny in a few decades when white boy is the minority group.
I wonder how republicans will feel a few decades out when their polling places get moved out of their neighborhoods, as is standard practice today (well,the attempt to do this has been standard practice in redneck land, but always struck down thanks to the VRA--well, not anymore!).

Mo' debinitely good that the court is willing to rule based on different political spectra, but so many 5-4 rulings are troubling. As this one; I generally respect Scalia's mind, but even if he rejects "Full faith and credit" arguments there is no more blatant abuse of the 10tn Amendment than DOMA. This should have been 9-0. There can be an interpretation of a conflict between the 10th and 14th Amendments, but to allow the 10th to override the 14th, and while it might technically have precedence, being in the Bill of Rights, that's certainly not a direction I want to go. I might have given Scalia credit for being consistent with Kelo v. New London, but he was in the minority of that abortion. Hard to see his dissent as other than attempted judicial activism in that light.

 

[soulcougher73]

Tell that to the Washington Florist being sued by the state AG...

When did I ever say it was about changing my marriage? That is a liberal created strawman.

It is about perverting marriage to be nothing more than a contract to extort benefits from the government. The existence of such an idea being an obvious absurdity.

Still waiting for the list of benefits i can extort. Apparently im doing my marriage wrong.

 

[nageov3t]

What DOMA ruling means for gay marriage

Congratulations! Here’s your bigger tax bill

When couples get married, they can file jointly for the first time – but that means many couples won’t get all of the tax breaks that they could have gotten if they’d filed individually...

But don’t worry about those estate taxes

One big tax benefit will come to people who won’t have to pay big estate tax bills when their spouses die – but that only affects same-sex couples who are wealthy enough to have a lot of assets.

Yes, you can get health coverage

And it doesn’t even have anything to do with Obamacare. It’s all about not being taxed for domestic partner health benefits anymore.

And you can get Social Security benefits

This is a big category for married same-sex couples. For the first time, spouses will be able to get Social Security retirement and death benefits — so get ready to spend lots of fun hours figuring out the rules.

Your spouse might get a green card

Just in time for the immigration debate —the decision will make it easier for immigrants’ same-sex spouses to sponsor them to become legal permanent residents.

What military families get

The decision is likely to have a big impact on 17,000 troops and veterans whose same-sex spouses have been shut out of a wide variety of benefits, from health care to military housing — and even the ability to be buried at the same cemetery.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were scheduled to hold a briefing Wednesday afternoon and could release some details on the next steps.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/...r-gay-marriage-93416_Page3.html#ixzz2XKw2baEF

 

[crashtestdummy]

Soooo... I am trying to understand this. If a couple gets married in a state where it is legal and recognized, then say, moves to a state like Texas where it is not, do they still get the Federal protections?? How does this work now?

That was not established in this case, and will be interesting going forward. I'm sure we'll see a challenge to that very soon.

 

[WackyDan]

This shit is so stupid. Why are people so afraid of who someone else wants to marry?

They wish to enforce their moral code derived from their religion onto everyone regardless of the "separation of church and state" clause. That clause it seems only applies to the church when the state is messing with them.