Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Article

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled the federal Defense of Marriage Act, a provision that denies federal benefits to legally married gay couples, is unconstitutional.

In a 5-4 ruling, the Court said DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment.

“DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty.”

The ruling is here (PDF).

I approve.

No surprise either on the ruling, or how the vote broke down.

Anyway I still think the state has no business in the marrying business at all, regardless of what consenting adult marries whom. It's really just not a state function in my opinion, it's a private covenant between adults.

Pretty much as expected. The Prop 8 case is what I'm interested in.

The pro-doma oral arguments were so unbelievably weak this was a given.

But still yay!

 Ouze wrote:
No surprise either on the ruling, or how the vote broke down.

Anyway I still think the state has no business in the marrying business at all, regardless of what consenting adult marries whom. It's really just not a state function in my opinion, it's a private covenant between adults.

Yep.

That's right along with my opinion too.

Well, this will be fun.
*Open facebook tab, gets a bag of popcorn and watch the tears flow from my traditionalist family members"

I want to read some delicious butthurt, but I can't find any. Even my conservative friends are pretty happy about this.

So on DOMA:

The SCOTUS didn't strike down the DOMA as a whole, they just struck down the federal definition of "marriage" and "spouse".

So it appears that Section 2 still stands?

 d-usa wrote:
So on DOMA:

The SCOTUS didn't strike down the DOMA as a whole, they just struck down the federal definition of "marriage" and "spouse".

So it appears that Section 2 still stands?

That does appear to be the case.

edit: for the feebleminded that don't like to sift through political and lawyer speak, section 2 defines what exactly?

 Alfndrate wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So on DOMA:

The SCOTUS didn't strike down the DOMA as a whole, they just struck down the federal definition of "marriage" and "spouse".

So it appears that Section 2 still stands?

That does appear to be the case.

I would imagine it wouldn't survive a separate challenge, but it might be a harder fight.

I'm a mixed bag on section 2. I think states that don't honor contracts endorsed by other states are donkey caves, but it is their power to be donkey caves...

Lol, based on my edit does that mean that if someone lived in a state that allowed gay marriage, got married to their partner and then moved to a state that didn't recognize gay marriage, they wouldn't be considered legally married?

 Alfndrate wrote:
Lol, based on my edit does that mean that if someone lived in a state that allowed gay marriage, got married to their partner and then moved to a state that didn't recognize gay marriage, they wouldn't be considered legally married?

That is a problem... it just won't work.

What if they moved, then decided to get divorced? How is that going to work?

Like Ouze said, the states shouldn't be in the business of defining marriage to begin with.

 Seaward wrote:
The Prop 8 case is what I'm interested in.

The court also dismissed a challenge to California's gay marriage ban, ruling that supporters of the ban did not have the legal standing, or right, to appeal a lower court's decision striking down Proposition 8

 whembly wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Lol, based on my edit does that mean that if someone lived in a state that allowed gay marriage, got married to their partner and then moved to a state that didn't recognize gay marriage, they wouldn't be considered legally married?

That is a problem... it just won't work.

What if they moved, then decided to get divorced? How is that going to work?

Like Ouze said, the states shouldn't be in the business of defining marriage to begin with.

There are just too many legal benefits, and private benefits, to marriage to go away from it now. There has to be a system to recognize and validate it or else anybody can just simply say "we are married" and get those benefits.

My conservative family takes issue with gay marriage because according to them "marriage" is a religious word and therefore has special sacred meanings. My take on that has always been that the states should stop issuing marriage licenses (if marriage is religious thing, then states should not sponsor religious institutions) and simply issue "domestic partnership licenses" for everyone. If you want to get married, take your domestic partnership license to your church and have a religious marriage ceremony. If you are not religious have a secular official do whatever ceremony you want. Or just sign your partnership license at the court house and be done with it.

But I'm a filthy liberal

 whembly wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Lol, based on my edit does that mean that if someone lived in a state that allowed gay marriage, got married to their partner and then moved to a state that didn't recognize gay marriage, they wouldn't be considered legally married?

That is a problem... it just won't work.

What if they moved, then decided to get divorced? How is that going to work?

Like Ouze said, the states shouldn't be in the business of defining marriage to begin with.

But that's what Section 2 is dictating? That 1 state doesn't have to follow a second state's decision on who can marry who?

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Lol, based on my edit does that mean that if someone lived in a state that allowed gay marriage, got married to their partner and then moved to a state that didn't recognize gay marriage, they wouldn't be considered legally married?

That is a problem... it just won't work.

What if they moved, then decided to get divorced? How is that going to work?

Like Ouze said, the states shouldn't be in the business of defining marriage to begin with.

There are just too many legal benefits, and private benefits, to marriage to go away from it now. There has to be a system to recognize and validate it or else anybody can just simply say "we are married" and get those benefits.

My conservative family takes issue with gay marriage because according to them "marriage" is a religious word and therefore has special sacred meanings. My take on that has always been that the states should stop issuing marriage licenses (if marriage is religious thing, then states should not sponsor religious institutions) and simply issue "domestic partnership licenses" for everyone. If you want to get married, take your domestic partnership license to your church and have a religious marriage ceremony. If you are not religious have a secular official do whatever ceremony you want. Or just sign your partnership license at the court house and be done with it.

But I'm a filthy liberal

I agree with you 100%!

What does that make me?

o.O

I need to read the actual wording of the DOMA ruling.

While not invalidating Section 2, I wonder if the reasoning they used to invalidate Section 3 would set a precedent to challenge the laws of individual states.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Lol, based on my edit does that mean that if someone lived in a state that allowed gay marriage, got married to their partner and then moved to a state that didn't recognize gay marriage, they wouldn't be considered legally married?

That is a problem... it just won't work.

What if they moved, then decided to get divorced? How is that going to work?

Like Ouze said, the states shouldn't be in the business of defining marriage to begin with.

There are just too many legal benefits, and private benefits, to marriage to go away from it now. There has to be a system to recognize and validate it or else anybody can just simply say "we are married" and get those benefits.

My conservative family takes issue with gay marriage because according to them "marriage" is a religious word and therefore has special sacred meanings. My take on that has always been that the states should stop issuing marriage licenses (if marriage is religious thing, then states should not sponsor religious institutions) and simply issue "domestic partnership licenses" for everyone. If you want to get married, take your domestic partnership license to your church and have a religious marriage ceremony. If you are not religious have a secular official do whatever ceremony you want. Or just sign your partnership license at the court house and be done with it.

But I'm a filthy liberal

I tell any family who says marriage is a religious institution that marriage pre-dates any form or organized religion. I also tell them how certain cultures(Including catholics) would have you knock up the women first to make sure she was fertile, if she wasn't you would go try to knock another girl. Then i ask my cousin how many cows his daughters are worth.

 d-usa wrote:
I need to read the actual wording of the DOMA ruling.

While not invalidating Section 2, I wonder if the reasoning they used to invalidate Section 3 would set a precedent to challenge the laws of individual states.

They struck down DOMA sec. 3 on equal protection grounds in a 5-4 decision. Good...

Let's talk consequences: Gay spouses may now file joint taxes, may donate jointly, may petition for legal residence for non-citizen spouses, may now obtain changes to their passports (married name corrections) the same as straight spouses. Military gay spouses are now entitled to the same survivor, housing, PX, and travel benefits as straight spouses.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I need to read the actual wording of the DOMA ruling.

While not invalidating Section 2, I wonder if the reasoning they used to invalidate Section 3 would set a precedent to challenge the laws of individual states.

They struck down DOMA sec. 3 on equal protection grounds in a 5-4 decision. Good...

Let's talk consequences: Gay spouses may now file joint taxes, may donate jointly, may petition for legal residence for non-citizen spouses, may now obtain changes to their passports (married name corrections) the same as straight spouses. Military gay spouses are now entitled to the same survivor, housing, PX, and travel benefits as straight spouses.

That is what I was wondering though. Since SCOTUS ruled Section 3 invalid under equal protection grounds, does that set a precedent for state court cases.

Oklahoma amended out constitution in 2000something to read:

SECTION II-35.
Marriage defined – Construction of law and Constitution – Recognition of out-of-state marriages – Penalty.
A. Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. Neither this Constitution nor any other provision of law shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

And the actual language of the DOMA Section 3:

``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.''.

So while the ruling today doesn't invalidate that, I wonder if it can be used to challenge this law in a separate lawsuit. That's why I was wondering about the specific language used.

Just a basic "the SCOTUS did not invalidate this law, but it has ruled that a federal law that used almost the same language violates the equal protection clause so we think this law should be struck down as well".

 Ahtman wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
The Prop 8 case is what I'm interested in.

The court also dismissed a challenge to California's gay marriage ban, ruling that supporters of the ban did not have the legal standing, or right, to appeal a lower court's decision striking down Proposition 8

You're fething kidding me. They punted on Prop 8?

 Seaward wrote:

You're fething kidding me. They punted on Prop 8?

They sure did.

Chief Justice John Roberts joined with Antonin Scalia, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan to rule the defenders of Prop 8 did not have the standing to defend the ban in court. The unlikely coalition of liberals and conservatives argued that the Prop 8 supporters could not prove they were directly injured by the lower court's decision to overturn the ban and allow gay people to marry.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

You're fething kidding me. They punted on Prop 8?

They sure did.

Chief Justice John Roberts joined with Antonin Scalia, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan to rule the defenders of Prop 8 did not have the standing to defend the ban in court. The unlikely coalition of liberals and conservatives argued that the Prop 8 supporters could not prove they were directly injured by the lower court's decision to overturn the ban and allow gay people to marry.

They can't play hot potato with it forever. Might as well sack up and rule.

It's just going to keep coming back in some form or another until you get some precedent on the books.

A precedent like Section 3 of the DOMA being unconstitutional due to a violation of the equal protection clause?

 Seaward wrote:

You're fething kidding me. They punted on Prop 8?

Not really...

They declined to allow standing to a private citizen to defend a state statute when the state itself declines to do so. They will vacate the 9th Circuit’s decision with a remand to dismiss the appeal.

That means, Gay marriage legal once again in California.

 d-usa wrote:
A precedent like Section 3 of the DOMA being unconstitutional due to a violation of the equal protection clause?

Is the ruling broad enough to prevent more Prop 8-style attempts?

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
A precedent like Section 3 of the DOMA being unconstitutional due to a violation of the equal protection clause?

Is the ruling broad enough to prevent more Prop 8-style attempts?

I think so.

Looks to me like it didn't invalidate individual state laws, but should be plenty for lower courts to use when state laws are challenged.

Of course if abortion is any indication of how states will honor Supreme Court rulings this will be a never ending back and forth for decades.

 d-usa wrote:

My conservative family takes issue with gay marriage because according to them "marriage" is a religious word and therefore has special sacred meanings. My take on that has always been that the states should stop issuing marriage licenses (if marriage is religious thing, then states should not sponsor religious institutions) and simply issue "domestic partnership licenses" for everyone. If you want to get married, take your domestic partnership license to your church and have a religious marriage ceremony. If you are not religious have a secular official do whatever ceremony you want. Or just sign your partnership license at the court house and be done with it.

But I'm a filthy liberal

I'm a filthy liberalitarian.

I think the word marriage does not belong to Christians any more than it belongs to Hindus, Muslims, Wiccans, Jews or the Church of Elvis.

Therefore, the states should absolutely continue to issue marriage licenses and if Christians need to have an identifier so badly, they should call their marriage 'Christian Sanctified Marriage (tm)' or, if the Christians who do think gays can marry are still a problem for them after that, they can amend their marriage identifier to Christians Who Exclude Homosexuals Sanctified Marriage'.

They should absolutely have the right and freedom to exclude gay folks from their wedding ceremonies, in their churches, according to their interpretation of scripture, they have absolutely no claim to the word marriage or to interference in matters of state. This is no theocracy.

Jews can still have marriage ceremonies at their temple, as well as Muslims. Take any kind of religious name out of the state issued license, let everybody go to the institution of their choice and do their preferred song and dance before singing it.

But like I said, that's just me.