SUPREME COURT RULES DOMA UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Forums: Same-Sex Marriage, D O M A, Legal, Equal Rights, Supreme Court Ruling
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Equal rights for all advance again. 'Bout time.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 24 • Views: 5,433 • Replies: 67

[+5] - jcboy - 06/26/2013Since we were legally married in New York the first thing I did was call my tax attorney. She said we could file our federal taxes jointly from now on! We donâ��t have State tax here in...
[+4] - blueveinedthrobber - 06/26/2013I just received, I kid you not, an invitation to do a gay wedding trade show and I'm in NC. More money. I like it.
[+4] - jcboy - 07/03/2013Equality Florida has raised 251 thousand dollars since DOMA to fight amendment 2 which banned same sex marriage in Florida. The lawyers are with Lambda Legal. We were interviewed and they are...
[+4] - MontereyJack - 07/03/2013Or do as Joe Nation suggests, challenge FL's refusal to honor gay marriages from other states as a violation of the Constitution, which requires reciprocity of recognizing other states' laws--come...
[+4] - Wilso - 07/03/2015**** off you ignorant, brain dead, dipshit.
[+3] - Setanta - 06/26/2013Where's Gunga Dim? He should be elated. The Court struck down an act signed by Slick Willy KKKlitler, the president he loves to hate.
[+3] - Thomas - 06/26/2013Good news! Since decision draws on the power of states to regulate marriage, how will this decision affect future cases against states who use this power to continue withholding marriage...
[+3] - jespah - 06/26/2013It'll be interesting. It's already a patchwork of laws, and will probably continue to be so. We'll see more cases on this, as couples residing in two separate states for temporary work, education...
[+3] - engineer - 06/26/2013[quote="jcboy"] Since we were legally married in New York the first thing I did was call my tax attorney. She said we could file our federal taxes jointly from now on! [/quote] I...
[+3] - Moment-in-Time - 06/29/2013[quote]The dems are happy that DOMA was overturned, and they should be. But do all of you note some hypocrisy in their stance? After all, it was Bill Clinton that signed DOMA into law. Joe...

@MontereyJack,

Definitely a move in the right direction. Finally, legally married same-sex couples will have the same federal rights and benefits as heterosexual married couples.

The Supreme Court has also cleared the way for California to legalize same-sex marriage.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/27/us/politics/supreme-court-gay-marriage.html?_r=0

0 Replies

From SCOTUSBlog:

Quote:

Amy Howe:
Here's a Plain English take on United States v. Windsor, the DOMA case: The federal Defense of Marriage Act defines "marriage," for purposes of over a thousand federal laws and programs, as a union between a man and a woman only. Today the Court ruled, by a vote of five to four, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy, that the law is unconstitutional. The Court explained that the states have long had the responsibility of regulating and defining marriage, and some states have opted to allow same-sex couples to marry to give them the protection and dignity associated with marriage. By denying recognition to same-sex couples who are legally married, federal law discriminates against them to express disapproval of state-sanctioned same-sex marriage. This decision means that same-sex couples who are legally married must now be treated the same under federal law as married opposite-sex couples.

Here's the opinion.

2 Replies

Where's Gunga Dim? He should be elated. The Court struck down an act signed by Slick Willy KKKlitler, the president he loves to hate.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Good news!

Since decision draws on the power of states to regulate marriage, how will this decision affect future cases against states who use this power to continue withholding marriage licenses from same-sex couples?

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

This is excellent news. It's also interesting that the opinion was released on the 10th anniversary of the decision in Lawrence v. Texas.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

It'll be interesting. It's already a patchwork of laws, and will probably continue to be so. We'll see more cases on this, as couples residing in two separate states for temporary work, education or military service (much of the military benefits is decided by the other case - dunno the name - where federal benefits are now allowed, but there may be other issues such as $$ toward off-base shared housing) start to sue to be on each other's benefits if one is in a same-sex-marriage-friendly state and the other is not.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Here is something I don't understand:

Scotusblog, as quoted by joefromchicago, wrote:

The Court explained that the states have long had the responsibility of regulating and defining marriage, and some states have opted to allow same-sex couples to marry to give them the protection and dignity associated with marriage. By denying recognition to same-sex couples who are legally married, federal law discriminates against them to express disapproval of state-sanctioned same-sex marriage.

On the other hand:

In the first sentence of its opinion, the Supreme Court wrote:

Two women then resident in New York were married in a lawful ceremony in Ontario, Canada, in 2007.

EDIT: Ah. The answer is on page 2 of the opinion:

The Supreme Court wrote:

Windsor and Spyer registered as domestic partners when New York City gave that right to same-sex couples in 1993. Concerned about Spyer’s health, the couple made the 2007 trip to Canada for their marriage, but they continued to reside in New York City. The State of New York deems their Ontario marriage to be a valid one.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Good news!

Since decision draws on the power of states to regulate marriage, how will this decision affect future cases against states who use this power to continue withholding marriage licenses from same-sex couples?

It's anyone's guess. The court in Loving v. Virginia said that marriage was a fundamental right, and that Virginia couldn't deny that right on the basis of race. I think the next logical step is to say that a state can't deny that right on the basis of sex. But I suppose only Anthony Kennedy knows the answer to those kinds of questions.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

How can the states' right to regulate marriage decide this case when the 'state' who married the couple was a foreign country?

Top of page 3 of the opinion: "The State of New York deems their Ontario marriage to be a valid one." Once New York recognized their foreign marriage, they were legally married for all purposes in that state. It's the same for any other marriage concluded in a foreign jurisdiction, and states routinely recognize those marriages without any fuss. The only problem occurs when a marriage that is legal in a foreign jurisdiction is not recognized in the state, such as when a polygamist immigrant seeks recognition for all of his marriages. That's not an issue in NY, however, since NY permits gay marriage.

0 Replies

Since we were legally married in New York the first thing I did was call my tax attorney. She said we could file our federal taxes jointly from now on! We don’t have State tax here in Florida.

The clouds just cleared, equality ain't lookin so cloudy no more and just in time. St. Pete Pride is this Saturday.

5 Replies

@jcboy,

welcome to the wonderfully confused world of estate planning and family corporations.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Such excellent news - if obvious to a lot of us.

0 Replies

@jcboy,

Hi, JC, and happy for you all.
Edit - well, for all of us americans.

0 Replies

@jcboy,

Hi, jcboy. When I heard the decision today, I immediately thought of you. I'm glad the skies today look much less cloudy than they did yesterday. The St. Pete Pride celebration on Saturday should be even happier than usual--this is a great step forward to equality.

How's everything with you? Still working on fixing up your house? I miss having you around A2K.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Hi!

We are expecting about 150 thousand this weekend in the Grand Central District for Pride.

The house is finished. I had to hire an architect to redesign the back. Moved the pool and built a new enclosed one with a large enclosed patio. Had them tear down the one bedroom guesthouse in the back so the dogs had a larger yard to play in. We didn’t need the guesthouse anyway we have enough bedrooms for guest to visit.

http://imageshack.us/a/img580/8596/pgb4.jpg

2 Replies

@jcboy,

That looks beautiful! What a great outdoor living area.

Are you finished with decorating the inside? Have you got a great kitchen to cook in?

0 Replies

@jcboy,

jcboy wrote:

Since we were legally married in New York the first thing I did was call my tax attorney. She said we could file our federal taxes jointly from now on!

I believe you could go back and file amended returns from the date you were married if that helps your situation.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

I am surprised it was 5-4. I thought some of those states' rights justices would agree that the federal government must defer to valid marriages in states. I think the next test is whether states must recognize each others marriages. That is already the case for hetrosexual marriages. Does anyone know if that is guaranteed by federal law or is it just a courtesy between states?

1 Reply

I just received, I kid you not, an invitation to do a gay wedding trade show and I'm in NC. More money. I like it.

0 Replies

SUPREME COURT RULES DOMA UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know