DOMA ruled unconstitutional

[NicAnn]

www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/supreme-court-doma-decision_n_3454811.html

I didn't see this posted yet. I know many, for and against, have been awaiting the outcome.

[albeto]

An article in Smithsonian offers a quick summary of the implications of this.

 

http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/smartnews/2013/06/what-do-americas-gay-families-get-now-that-doma-is-dead/?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=socialmedia&utm_campaign=20130626&utm_content=smartnewsdoma

[StephanieZ]

:hurray: :hurray:

:hurray:

[Firefly]

About freaking time. :thumbup1:

[TracyP]

:hurray: (edited out a stupid question)

 

 

I don't get what they said about prop 8. Can anyone explain?

[Mrs Mungo]

I don't get what they said about prop 8. Can anyone explain?

 

 

Basically, the state had opted not to defend it in court. Private parties stepped in to defend the law. SCOTUS said the private parties do not have standing to defend a state law. I think that is the simplistic version. Gay marriage can resume in CA as a result.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/26/politics/scotus-prop-8/index.html

[TracyP]

Basically, the state had opted not to defend it in court. Private parties stepped in to defend the law. SCOTUS said the private parties do not have standing to defend a state law. I think that is the simplistic version. Gay marriage can resume in CA as a result.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2...op-8/index.html

 

I didn't realize that it was private parties, not the state, bringing the case in the first place. That makes much more sense.

[AdventureMoms]

Yay! Now I get to open an IRA! Lol.

[JumpyTheFrog]

Let's say a couple marries in state A. Then they move to state B, which doesn't recognize their marriage. Can they still file federal taxes jointly? Is their status based on where they were married or their current state of residency?

[*Lulu*]

Let's say a couple marries in state A. Then they move to state B, which doesn't recognize their marriage. Can they still file federal taxes jointly? Is their status based on where they were married or their current state of residency?

 

 

I wouldn't think the federal status would change just because the couple is in a different state.

 

The state level will be stickier, I think, until we hit the point where all the states are recongnizing as legal same sex marriages.

[Mergath]

:hurray: :party:

[Mrs Mungo]

Let's say a couple marries in state A. Then they move to state B, which doesn't recognize their marriage. Can they still file federal taxes jointly? Is their status based on where they were married or their current state of residency?

 

The IRS bases it on residency, so they can only file jointly if they live in a state that recognizes their marriage as legal. But, not all federal agencies treat it the same. I imagine we might see changes to some changes to some of those rules in the very near future.

[Mergath]

I wouldn't think the federal status would change just because the couple is in a different state.

 

The state level will be stickier, I think, until we hit the point where all the states are recongnizing as legal same sex marriages.

 

It's pretty messy, from what I've read. The Full Faith and Credit Clause should mean that the marriages are recognized in any state, but then states have passed laws stating that they won't recognize a same-sex marriage from any state. Perhaps SCOTUS striking down DOMA will change that? No idea. Any lawyers want to throw in their two cents?

[*Lulu*]

 

 

The IRS bases it on residency, so they can only file jointly if they live in a state that recognizes their marriage as legal. But, not all federal agencies treat it the same. I imagine we might see changes to some changes to some of those rules in the very near future.

 

Ack!

 

Sounds like correcting this is where the next big push needs to be focused.

 

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

It's pretty messy, from what I've read. The Full Faith and Credit Clause should mean that the marriages are recognized in any state, but then states have passed laws stating that they won't recognize a same-sex marriage from any state. Perhaps SCOTUS striking down DOMA will change that? No idea. Any lawyers want to throw in their two cents?

 

The Full Faith and Credit Clause issue will have to be challenged separately.

[Mrs Mungo]

Ack!

 

Sounds like correcting this is where the next big push needs to be focused.

 

 

The administration can now actually change a lot of those rules without legislation, so I imagine those things will happen pretty quickly. Immigration, the DoD and some other federal agencies base marriage on place of celebration. So, I think you will see SS couples receiving green cards, dependent ID cards, survivor benefits and such rather quickly.

 

Other agencies that base marriage on place of residency (such as the VA) are heavily ruled by legislation. Those are the agencies where there will be a hard slog.

 

ETA: I found an article with some discussion on this:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/06/26/195881288/after-doma-whats-next-for-gay-married-couples

[Spy Car]

I don't get what they said about prop 8. Can anyone explain?

 

 

The Supreme Court said that the pro-8 (anti same sex marriage) group that sponsored the Proposition in California did not have legal "standing" to defend it in the Courts when the State declined to defend Prop 8.

 

Personally, I think this decision was a travesty. To be clear, I was (and am) very much against Prop 8 and in favor of marriage equality, but I do not agree that citizens groups who actively promote Propositions should lack the legal standing to defend those Propostions should the State decline to defend them (as happened in this case).

 

Such a ruling gives the State a "veto power" in the Court, and short-cuts the "will of the people." It would have been far preferable IMO for the Supreme Court to rule on the merits of the case. Instead they have set a very bad legal precedent IMO.

 

This time the "technicality" lead to results I happen to favor, as marriage equality will soon be the legal situation in California (and I'm very happy for that) but I am troubled by the precedent.

 

I'm very happy about the striking down of the DOMA (it was over-due) as a great day in the history of our republic, and am glad that CA District Court decision striking down Prop 8 remains in effect. But I'm not in accord with the reasoning of the Court on the issue of "standing." I find it troubling, and wrong.

 

Bill (looking at the at the dark lining in a silver cloud :D)

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The Supreme Court said that the pro-8 (anti same sex marriage) group that sponsored the Proposition in California did not have legal "standing" to defend it in the Courts when the State declined to defend Prop 8.

 

Personally, I think this decision was a travesty. To be clear, I was (and am) very much against Prop 8 and in favor or marriage equality, but do not agree that citizens groups who actively promote Propositions should lack the legal standing to defend those Propostions should the State decline to defend them (as happened in this case).

 

Such a ruling gives the State a "veto power" in the Court, and short-cuts the "will of the people." It would have been far preferable IMO for the Supreme Court to rule on the merits of the case. Instead they have set a very bad legal precedent IMO.

 

This time the "technicality" lead to results I happen to favor, as marriage equality will soon be the legal situation in California (and I'm very happy for that) but I am troubled by the precedent.

 

I'm very happy about the striking down of the DOMA (it was over-due) as a great day in the history of our republic, and am glad that CA District Court decision striking down Prop 8 remains in effect. But I'm not in accord with the reasoning of the Court on the issue of "standing." I find it troubling, and wrong.

 

Bill (looking at the at the darkin lining in a silver cloud :D)

 

Agreed. This effectively gives state leadership veto power over voter propositions.

[TracyP]

The Supreme Court said that the pro-8 (anti same sex marriage) group that sponsored the Proposition in California did not have legal "standing" to defend it in the Courts when the State declined to defend Prop 8.

 

Personally, I think this decision was a travesty. To be clear, I was (and am) very much against Prop 8 and in favor or marriage equality, but do not agree that citizens groups who actively promote Propositions should lack the legal standing to defend those Propostions should the State decline to defend them (as happened in this case).

 

Such a ruling gives the State a "veto power" in the Court, and short-cuts the "will of the people." It would have been far preferable IMO for the Supreme Court to rule on the merits of the case. Instead they have set a very bad legal precedent IMO.

 

This time the "technicality" lead to results I happen to favor, as marriage equality will soon be the legal situation in California (and I'm very happy for that) but I am troubled by the precedent.

 

I'm very happy about the striking down of the DOMA (it was over-due) as a great day in the history of our republic, and am glad that CA District Court decision striking down Prop 8 remains in effect. But I'm not in accord with the reasoning of the Court on the issue of "standing." I find it troubling, and wrong.

 

Bill (looking at the at the darkin lining in a silver cloud :D)

Interesting. The legislative system in CA is confusing to me so I appreciate your perspective.

[Spy Car]

 

Interesting. The legislative system in CA is confusing to me so I appreciate your perspective.

 

It is confusing to us too :D

 

It is one of the vestiges of the "progressive era" that State voters can pass leglislation directly through the Proposition process. It definitely keeps things "interesting" here in the Golden State.

 

Bill

 

 

[Mrs Mungo]

The standing issue isn't really a precedent though. You have to prove harm at the very least, yes? There are many court cases before this that formed a precedent? How is this one different from those? Not arguing, I'm curious. And I did read the minority opinion.

[justasque]

It's pretty messy, from what I've read. The Full Faith and Credit Clause should mean that the marriages are recognized in any state, but then states have passed laws stating that they won't recognize a same-sex marriage from any state. Perhaps SCOTUS striking down DOMA will change that? No idea. Any lawyers want to throw in their two cents?

 

 

My understanding is that only DOMA Section 3 was part of Edie Windsor's challenge, not Section 2. It's Section 2 that says states don't have to recognize other states' marriages.

 

Section 2. Powers reserved to the states

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

 

Section 3. Definition of marriage

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

[Spy Car]

The standing issue isn't really a precedent though. You have to prove harm at the very least, yes? There are many court cases before this that formed a precedent? How is this one different from those? Not arguing, I'm curious. And I did read the minority opinion.

 

 

I have only read portions of Justice Kennedy's dissent, if you have a link to the full text I'd appreciate your posting it, but find the limited arguments I've read persuasive.

 

On one level it makes no sense to have an initative process that is designed to get around the control of elected State officials, yet give those same officials "veto power" to decline to defend them in Federal Court. I do understand the difference between State and Federal law and legal procedure, and will admit it gets "messy" when the norms are in conflict.

 

As to defining "harm," I can't see how having the fruits of ones labors in the political arena erased by a Court decision don't constitute a "harm." I'm in the decidedly weird position of defending the "harm" done to a group I profoundly disagree with, but, on principle, I believe they deserved their day in Court. That's just me.

 

Bill

[Mrs Mungo]

I have only read portions of Justice Kennedy's dissent, if you have a link to the full text I'd appreciate your posting it, but find the limited arguments I've read persuasive.

 

http://www.supremeco...12-144_8ok0.pdf

 

On one level it makes no sense to have an initative process that is designed to get around the control of elected State officials, yet give those same officials "veto power" to decline to defend them in Federal Court. I do understand the difference between State and Federal law and legal procedure, and will admit it gets "messy" when the norms are in conflict.

 

As to defining "harm," I can't see how having the fruits of ones labors in the political arena erased by a Court decision don't constitute a "harm." I'm in the decidedly weird position of defending the "harm" done to a group I profoundly disagree with, but, on principle, I believe they deserved their day in Court. That's just me.

 

It does complicate matters, but maybe it is something that California needs to work out in its system?

 

ETA: The original post was about DOMA, while Bill's post was about Prop 8. The link is to the case on Prop 8, not DOMA. I hope that doesn't confuse anyone! :)

[Spy Car]

 

 

http://www.supremeco...12-144_8ok0.pdf

 

 

 

It does complicate matters, but maybe it is something that California needs to work out in its system?

 

Thank you for the link.

 

I would think many Californians—ones that think like me, anyway—believe we had worked this out in our system by having the unequivocal legal position at the State level that proponents of initiatives have the legal standing to defend their propositions in court.

 

I'm trying to imagine what mechanism could be legally adopted here in CA that would give "representives of the people" or parties heavily invested in the initative process clear legal standing in Federal cases when the State fails to defend laws passed through the initative process. What might that look like? Other than the, to me manifest, position current in the State Courts that prophets should (and do) have standing.

 

Bill (off to read)

[LucyStoner]

I think the court was wanting to avoid changing marriage laws in all states and that is why they side stepped on Prop 8.

[poppy]

On one level it makes no sense to have an initative process that is designed to get around the control of elected State officials, yet give those same officials "veto power" to decline to defend them in Federal Court. I do understand the difference between State and Federal law and legal procedure, and will admit it gets "messy" when the norms are in conflict.

 

On a certain, very messy, level, isn't what happened to Prop 8 essentially what happened to DOMA? The Obama administration declined to defend DOMA even though it is Federal law created by elected officials.

 

Whoops meant to say WAS Federal law!

[Mrs Mungo]

On a certain, very messy, level, isn't what happened to Prop 8 essentially what happened to DOMA? The Obama administration declined to defend DOMA even though it is Federal law created by elected officials.

 

Whoops meant to say WAS Federal law!

 

 

No, because a group of elected officials were still the ones defending it.

[LucyStoner]

Also, FWIW I am from a state which like California allows for citizen written proposals to become law via public vote, through what we call "initiatives" rather than propositions. If any other state would like our initiative process, they are welcome to it. You can totally come and take it as far as I am concerned. After seeing my state vote yes for conflicting ideas in the same election (seriously people you can't vote for spending mandates and tax cuts at the same time, smh), I think initiatives are a big fat mess. Is there somewhere I go to turn in my populist card?

 

While I agree with SpyCar that if a state has initiatives or propositions then it seems that voter groups do have standing, I really don't support the process as it stands. I don't think that voters should have the right to vote on the rights of others and I think that the grassroots populist aims of the process are trampled by the realities that make it impossible for all but monied interests to get something of potential value on the ballot.

[Spy Car]

Also, FWIW I am from a state which like California allows for citizen written proposals to become law via public vote, through what we call "initiatives" rather than propositions. If any other state would like our initiative process, they are welcome to it. You can totally come and take it as far as I am concerned. After seeing my state vote yes for conflicting ideas in the same election (seriously people you can't vote for spending mandates and tax cuts at the same time, smh), I think initiatives are a big fat mess. Is there somewhere I go to turn in my populist card?

 

While I agree with SpyCar that if a state has initiatives or propositions then it seems that voter groups do have standing, I really don't support the process as it stands. I don't think that voters should have the right to vote on the rights of others and I think that the grassroots populist aims of the process are trampled by the realities that make it impossible for all but monied interests to get something of potential value on the ballot.

 

 

I share many of your concerns with the initative process myself. Generally it is a big fat mess. Unfortunately so is the CA legislature. *Sigh*

 

Bill

[justasque]

...

Whoops meant to say WAS Federal law!

 

 

Well, "WAS" for Section 3, anyway.

Section 2 still stands, as it was not part of the Windsor challenge. It basically says [paraphrasing here] no state has to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state, or any judicial proceeding or right or claim,etc., based on or arising from that relationship. The actual text is below:

 

Section 2. Powers reserved to the states

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

[Liz CA]

Well, "WAS" for Section 3, anyway.

Section 2 still stands, as it was not part of the Windsor challenge. It basically says [paraphrasing here] no state has to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state, or any judicial proceeding or right or claim,etc., based on or arising from that relationship. The actual text is below:

 

Section 2. Powers reserved to the states

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

 

 

Interesting. Seems to happen more often that the rulings are more confusing than clarifying. A state can still refuse to recognize same sex marriage but denying the right to marry is unconstitutional? Am I getting this right?

I have to admit that I have not read the original opinions (yet) since I am a little swamped with work right now.

[justasque]

Interesting. Seems to happen more often that the rulings are more confusing than clarifying. A state can still refuse to recognize same sex marriage but denying the right to marry is unconstitutional? Am I getting this right?

I have to admit that I have not read the original opinions (yet) since I am a little swamped with work right now.

 

 

No, you're not quite right.

The court did not say that denying the right to marry is unconstitutional.

 

There were two decisions, one on DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act), which declared Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional, but did not address Section 2.

The other was on Prop. 8, which was decided on a technicality about standing (in other words, they did not address the meat of the question presented to them), and so the lower court ruling stands, which applies only to California.

 

The DOMA decision basically said that the Federal government now has to recognize same-sex marriages that were performed in states where they are legal. Until now, folks could get married in, and live in, say, Massachusetts, but the Federal government was not allowed, because of DOMA Section 3 (see below), to recognize their marriage. So a couple could be considered married on their state taxes but not on their federal taxes. In addition, a person in a same-sex marriage who was a federal employee or military member could not have their marriage recognized by their employer (the federal government), so their spouse could not get benefits such as health insurance, various military benefits, retirement benefits, and so on. The court did not address the issue of whether states without same-sex marriage have to recognize marriages from other states.

 

(As Mrs. Mungo has mentioned, it's still complicated if someone gets married in a state where it is legal but resides in a state where it is not.)

 

DOMA Section 3. Definition of marriage

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.