Supreme Court strikes down key part of DOMA

[Antinor01]

@Dr.Drake

Today my Canadian marriage to my British spouse is recognized in my home state of California and my home country. Should I wish to return, I can sponsor my husband for a green card.

I’m about to start crying, which is kind of embarrassing as I’m by myself in a café.

A lot of unanswered questions and confusing contradictions still, but this is a very good thing.

I was thinking about the two of you this morning when the decision was announced. It’s a great day!

[Dr.Drake]

@Antinor01

I was thinking about the two of you this morning when the decision was announced. It’s a great day!

Thanks. It is indeed!

[purplehorseshoe]

@LurkMeister

My first thought (besides the obvious “Yay for LGBT Rights”) was that, if striking down DOMA means that all federal agencies are now required to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states where they are legal, I’m really glad I’m no longer working for the Social Security Administration. All of the entitlement codes used to identify spouses and widows are gender-specific, and unless they’ve made some major system changes since I retired they’re going to have big problems when they have to process claims for same-sex couples.

Holy crap I’m glad I’m not an admin over there!!! :eek:

[Musicat]

“Let two people who love each other get married, and it’ll be the biggest non-event in history.”

[Folacin]

@That_Don_Guy

Then again, I wouldn’t be surprised to see requests to circulate petitions for a ballot proposition to replace the currently unconstitutional text with “California recognizes for all purposes as valid any marriage between two consenting adults” (with possible text along the lines of “except where both persons are the grandchild of the same person”) on their way to Sacramento as I type this. That is probably how this will end up being resolved once and for all.

Actually, CA currently allows first cousins to marry. I was surprised to see MN on the ‘no’ list, as I’ve got two married cousins who I thought did the deed there. But she was from CA, so presumably that is where they got married.

[Sampiro]

@Max_Torque

My first thought was: Lawrence v. Texas came out 10 years ago, also on June 26th. Has my birthday become Awesome Gay Judicial Opinion Day? Is the cosmos trying to tell me something?

Ten years from today they’ll rule that you’re required to have at least one gay spouse. Mark my words.

[Richard_Parker]

Gay spouse or same-sex spouse? Doesn’t matter. Either way I choose Neil Patrick Harris.

[OttoDaFe]

@Samantha_Leigh

Must pop in to say I am so very happy about these rulings!

No I’m sorry, there isn’t time, we’re just going straight over to Luton.

(I’m more relieved than pleased, but that spike on the seismograph earlier today was me doing a minor HD.)

[etv78]

@Richard_Parker

Gay spouse or same-sex spouse? Doesn’t matter. Either way I choose Neil Patrick Harris.

Don’t think David would like that very much!

[computergeek]

I’m a little confused about the DOMA ruling. It strikes down Section 3, which impacts Federal Benefits. The parts of the ruling I’ve managed to get through so far seems to suggest that not allowing a same-sex couple Federal Benefits impacts States rights. I don’t understand why this is the case if the benefits are Federal. How does that affect a state and their right to conduct marriages?

[Dr.Drake]

@computergeek

I’m a little confused about the DOMA ruling. It strikes down Section 3, which impacts Federal Benefits. The parts of the ruling I’ve managed to get through so far seems to suggest that not allowing a same-sex couple Federal Benefits impacts States rights. I don’t understand why this is the case if the benefits are Federal. How does that affect a state and their right to conduct marriages?

By denying marriage benefits, the federal government is effectively denying the state’s right to conduct marriage as it sees fit. Otherwise, everyone would have to marry at both the state and federal levels.

In other words, Vermont says I am married; the feds say I am not. Therefore, they are second-guessing Vermont’s decision.

[Suburban_Plankton]

@Max_Torque

My first thought was: Lawrence v. Texas came out 10 years ago, also on June 26th. Has my birthday become Awesome Gay Judicial Opinion Day? Is the cosmos trying to tell me something?

Happy AGJOBDay!

@That_Don_Guy

Prop 8 is dead “for the moment” in California. Nothing stops a future Governor or Attorney General, who would have standing, to go back to the Supreme Court.

Considering that, when Prop 8 was first passed, it was immediately blocked, but when the state Supreme Court ruled it valid, it also ruled that any same-sex marriages performed during the stay of execution would remain valid, I wonder how many couples are going to try to get married ASAP just in case somebody with standing does get elected in 2014.

Then again, I wouldn’t be surprised to see requests to circulate petitions for a ballot proposition to replace the currently unconstitutional text with “California recognizes for all purposes as valid any marriage between two consenting adults” (with possible text along the lines of “except where both persons are the grandchild of the same person”) on their way to Sacramento as I type this. That is probably how this will end up being resolved once and for all.

Ugh…I think today’s ruling effectively puts an end to the debate in California, but I fear it’s going to be a number of election cycles before it is *officially *put to rest. The problem with the Initiative process in California is that there’s really nothing stopping anyone from putting forth an initiative that basically says “We should undo whatever it was that the last Initiative did”…and so long as enough people keep signing the petitions, us voters get to keep deciding the same thing over and over and over and over again…

[ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]

Hot diggity!

[computergeek]

@Dr.Drake

By denying marriage benefits, the federal government is effectively denying the state’s right to conduct marriage as it sees fit. Otherwise, everyone would have to marry at both the state and federal levels.

In other words, Vermont says I am married; the feds say I am not. Therefore, they are second-guessing Vermont’s decision.

I still don’t understand though. If it’s about Federal benefits, how does that impact the state in any way? DOMA just withholds Federal benefits and doesn’t withhold state benefits. Is it just a technical thing?

[Dr.Drake]

@computergeek

I still don’t understand though. If it’s about Federal benefits, how does that impact the state in any way? DOMA just withholds Federal benefits and doesn’t withhold state benefits. Is it just a technical thing?

I suppose it is technical. The federal government isn’t allowed to override state decisions on marriage, but it has been doing so via DOMA. It doesn’t really matter whether that was done by withholding benefits or granting additional benefits: it’s not up to the Feds to make those decisions. This decision just slaps the Fed’s hand and says “bad!”

(So if the government starts recognizing gay marriage for all Americans regardless of residency, they’d be in just as much trouble. Since the Full Faith and Credit clause is currently being ignored, we haven’t seen the last of this issue.)

[Gagundathar]

@Max_Torque

My first thought was: Lawrence v. Texas came out 10 years ago, also on June 26th. Has my birthday become Awesome Gay Judicial Opinion Day? Is the cosmos trying to tell me something?

Uh… maybe… Happy Birthday?

//////////////////////////

This is a red-letter day for equality in the USA!
Man, oh man, I have some pretty giddy friends right now, I can tell you that.
Not that it will make an immediate difference to them since they live here in the South, but this is a big deal. All bets are off now.

Wow, and this was really unexpected. I thought the SCOTUS wouldn’t do what I thought was the right thing. I love being wrong in these circumstances.

[Senegoid]

There’s also a thread on dead DOMA over in IMHO.

Ding dong DOMA's dead!

In particular, see this post for some remarks on how persons married in a SSM state may fare when they live in a non-SSM state, including questions about what Federal marriage benefits they might (or might not) be eligible for, including some cites.

[DrumBum]

I too am very please at the outcome, both for my friends and the Dopers here. I have several colleagues that I worked with for which this decision, and the Prop 8 decision, will have a significant positive impact on. They already had full survivor benefits from the company but the DOMA decision will doubtless put more money in their pockets when they file Federal taxes. I am not sure how this impacts their CA state taxes.

Their only worry is that they could get transferred to the Houston office. :eek:

[computergeek]

Is it just me or does reading the court opinion on DOMA give the idea that the Obama administration refused to refund the lady’s money in order to force the issue to get taken to court?

[Nametag]

I found a couple of good articles on the standing of intervenor-defendants (warning: PDFs):

One from long before these cases and another directly addressing them.

It seems to me that the Court screwed up on both - that the Prop 8 proponents had standing as a matter of California state law, which SCOTUS should have recognized, and that BLAG lacked standing as a matter of federal law (including the Constitution), which for DOMA is the only law that matters.