24
   

SUPREME COURT RULES DOMA UNCONSTITUTIONAL

 
 
Reply Wed 26 Jun, 2013 08:41 am
Equal rights for all advance again. 'Bout time.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 24 • Views: 4,451 • Replies: 67

 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Jun, 2013 09:18 am
@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
 
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Wed 26 Jun, 2013 09:21 am
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.
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Wed 26 Jun, 2013 09:33 am
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
 
Thomas
 
  3  
Reply Wed 26 Jun, 2013 09:33 am
@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?
Peter Frouman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 26 Jun, 2013 09:37 am
@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
 
jespah
 
  3  
Reply Wed 26 Jun, 2013 09:51 am
@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
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Wed 26 Jun, 2013 09:51 am
@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.
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Wed 26 Jun, 2013 09:56 am
@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
 
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Wed 26 Jun, 2013 10:04 am
@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
 
jcboy
 
  5  
Reply Wed 26 Jun, 2013 10:28 am
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.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 26 Jun, 2013 10:33 am
@jcboy,
welcome to the wonderfully confused world of estate planning and family corporations.

0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  2  
Reply Wed 26 Jun, 2013 10:58 am
@MontereyJack,
Such excellent news - if obvious to a lot of us.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  2  
Reply Wed 26 Jun, 2013 10:59 am
@jcboy,
Hi, JC, and happy for you all.
Edit - well, for all of us americans.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Jun, 2013 11:02 am
@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.
jcboy
 
  2  
Reply Wed 26 Jun, 2013 11:32 am
@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
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Jun, 2013 11:46 am
@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
 
engineer
 
  3  
Reply Wed 26 Jun, 2013 11:49 am
@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
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Jun, 2013 11:52 am
@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?
blueveinedthrobber
 
  4  
Reply Wed 26 Jun, 2013 11:58 am
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
 
 

Related Topics

Well, That Didn't Take Long - Question by blueveinedthrobber
DOMA ruling - Discussion by Buffalo
CONSERVATIVE THIRD PARTY - Discussion by Setanta
Political Activism in American Churches - Discussion by wandeljw
a logic found in california - Discussion by dyslexia
Marriages vs. Civil Unions - Question by Shapeless
 
  1. Forums
  2. » SUPREME COURT RULES DOMA UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/28/2021 at 11:10:36