SUPREME COURT RULES DOMA UNCONSTITUTIONAL

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

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?

That's guaranteed by the Constitution's comity clause. Indeed, DOMA was designed to thwart the operation of the comity clause by making marriage a federal, rather than a state, matter. As a result of the court's ruling, states should be required to recognize valid marriages from other states, including gay marriages. That doesn't mean, however, that some states won't try to avoid that result.

1 Reply

No matter the ideological makeup of the Supreme Court they are always capable of pleasant surprises.

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! We don’t have State tax here in Florida.

Let us know how that goes, because MSNBC's legal correspondent believes your tax attorney is wrong. (I forgot his name.) He just said that as a rule, the federal government defers to the state in which you reside, not the state in which you got married. So if you're a Florida resident, and Florida law does not recognize same-sex marriages, your partner and you continue to be unmarried in the eyes of the federal law. At least that's what MSNBC says, and MSNBC does not usually spin reality in a conservative direction.

0 Replies

Since the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional this paves the way for legally married gay couples to receive the same federal benefits straight couples receive. Yes gay married couples will be able to file a joint federal tax return and yes they can have their federal tax returns amended from the time they were legally married.

All marriages legally performed by states will be recognized by the federal government.

1 Reply

@jcboy,

<waves!!!>

Great news today! I thought of you guys, too, among other friends.
It's a "win" for everyone, whether they understand it or not.

Good to see a photo of your new pool, too! Any other improvements still in the works?

0 Replies

@JeffreyEqualityNewma,

Quote:

Yes gay married couples will be able to file a joint federal tax return and yes they can have their federal tax returns amended from the time they were legally married.
All marriages legally performed by states will be recognized by the federal government.

Is that true even when the same-sex couple, who legally married in one state, now reside in a state that does not recognize their marriage as legal?

It doesn't seem to be true from what I've read about the decision.

Quote:

The constitutional basis for striking down the law was not entirely clear, as it had elements of federalism, equal protection and due process. Justice Kennedy said the law’s basic flaw was in its “deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment.”

He added that the ruling applied only to marriages in states that allow gay and lesbian couples to marry.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/27/us/politics/supreme-court-gay-marriage.html

Quote:

In striking down part of the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, a 5-to-4 majority of the Supreme Court overturned a law that denied federal benefits to same-sex couples. The decision does not guarantee a right to same-sex marriage, but it allows people who live in states that allow same-sex marriage to receive the same federal benefits as heterosexual couples.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/26/us/annotated-supreme-court-decision-on-doma.html?ref=politics

1 Reply

@firefly,

DOMA is Federally Unconstitutional. All fifty states have legislative bodies that make laws that apply to persons found within their jurisdicitions. The states are free to craft their own laws as they see fit, but within certain limitations. As in Lawrence v. Texas which teaches us just because some people believe that the private, consensual sexual relations between persons of the same sex are wrong, they enacted laws, used the power of the State, to criminalize that wrongful conduct. But, there are certain lines that our lawmakers cannot cross when legislating.

The fundamental right to marriage based on the gender of one's intended spouse only begs the question

In other words those that have married in States that regonize gay marriage are federally entitled to the same benefits.

1 Reply

Every once in a while the Supreme Court actually makes a wise decision. It's not often, but . . .

Great news.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

That's guaranteed by the Constitution's comity clause. Indeed, DOMA was designed to thwart the operation of the comity clause by making marriage a federal, rather than a state, matter. As a result of the court's ruling, states should be required to recognize valid marriages from other states, including gay marriages.

I looked this up to see what the opinions are and what I'm getting is that the Supreme Court did not comment on the part of DOMA that specifically voids the comity clause for gay marriage. I guess that is the next law suit.

1 Reply

@JeffreyEqualityNewma,

JeffreyEqualityNewma wrote:

The fundamental right to marriage based on the gender of one's intended spouse only begs the question

I'm sorry, but that's wishful thinking, and Firefly is right. In yesterday's decisions, The Supreme Court explicitly avoided deciding if the fundamental right to marry extends to same-sex couples. By striking down DOMA's amendment of the Dictionary Act, it resets federal law to the old policy: the US government defers to the state in which you reside. Because you and your partner reside in Florida and Florida continues to consider you unmarried, the IRS will continue to consider you unmarried, too.

0 Replies

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

I looked this up to see what the opinions are and what I'm getting is that the Supreme Court did not comment on the part of DOMA that specifically voids the comity clause for gay marriage. I guess that is the next law suit.

Yes, that will probably be the next lawsuit that will land on the supreme court's docket. The comity clause (or "full faith and credit clause") is a pretty tricky area of the law, and there are a bunch of conflicting precedents out there. In general, states are obligated to respect the public acts of the other states, and that includes marriages. There is, however, an exception which allows states to disregard the acts of other states if those acts violate public policy. Asserting a constitutional right, on the other hand, could never be contrary to public policy. A challenge to a state ban on gay marriage based on the comity clause, therefore, may also involve a broader challenge to bans on gay marriage everywhere if the plaintiffs allege that they have a constitutional right to marry.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

I seem to recall there were some USSC cases that said states had to recognize divorces from other states.

1 Reply

Windsor sued the United States on the reasoning that when her lesbian partner of 40 years died and left everything to her, she had to pay the federal government $363,053 in estate taxes. Whereas in a "traditional" marriage arrangement, if a spouse dies, the remaining spouse would not have to pay the estate taxes. She won the case - and will get her money back, plus interest. Therefore, How can it now be legal for the federal government to give ANY tax benefits two a married couple without also offering the SAME tax benefits to a single person. Or for that matter.... How can the federal government allow a church to not pay any taxes when they take in money, but tax every other "organization" that takes in money? Or, how can the federal government now "legally" enforce ANYTHING other than a "flat tax" across the board - so EVERYONE is equal?

2 Replies

so you think the government should allow a single person to inherit all his own/her own estate when he/she dies, without any taxes being taken out?

1 Reply

@Buffalo,

If you consider that logical reasoning, you're sadly mistaken. If you have an anti-tax agenda swirling around in your brain, you will need to do better than that to justify it.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

I seem to recall there were some USSC cases that said states had to recognize divorces from other states.

That's another tricky area. Back in the 1930s and 40s, there were a lot of cases that involved Nevada divorces. Nevada had the most liberal requirements for establishing residence (I think it was six weeks), so people would travel to Nevada, spend some time there, and then get a divorce at the end - like a divorce/vacation (see "The Women" for a cinematic example). In a pair of cases, the supreme court said that a state can't act as if another state's divorce decree never happened, but the decree can still be attacked on collateral grounds.

0 Replies

@Buffalo,

Buffalo they can do that because where taxes are concerned they can and will do any damn thing they please.

0 Replies

So how should we ALL feel when a big enough group of people wants to marry their dog? I think I've heard that the gay and lesbian population represents about 3%? I know.... stupid comparison. But.... where does it stop? Anyone for polygamy?

0 Replies

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 Biden voted in favor of DOMA, as did many of the same dems that now welcome it being overturned.

3 Replies

@mysteryman,

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 Biden voted in favor of DOMA, as did many of the same dems that now welcome it being overturned.

There is no "hypocrisy" inside the tent of Democrats, Mysteryman. The period you're referring to was a different time and the atmosphere regarding Gays was the opposite of what it is today. The winds of change has shifted and over 63% of the American people are now more accepting of equality for Homosexuals. Americans' approval of Gay rights hasn't always been an easy process, but step by step Gays, Lesbians, have steadily climbed towards their goal until the ban against DOMA was finally overturned.

"The wheels of Justice turns slowly, but once put in motion, they keep on turning.

Also,

"The arc of the moral Universe is long but it bends towards justice."

"Let Freedom Ring for All Peoples"

0 Replies

SUPREME COURT RULES DOMA UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know