DOMA Struck Down by Supreme Court

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.

**whembly**

Cool!

**Dreadclaw69**

Good, they should be afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples.
http://news.yahoo.com/gay-couple-florida-already-first-post-doma-green-112200154.html

Just two days after the Defense of Marriage Act was struck down, a Bulgarian immigrant who is married to an American man, became the first member of a same-sex couple to receive one of the biggest federal marriage benefits available. The couple's lawyer received an email on Friday night informing him that Traian Popov had already received approval for his permanent resident visa, even the Supreme Court ruling that gave that right was just a little over 48 hours old.

Popov has lived in the United States for 15 years through a long progression of student visas (he has three master's degrees and working toward a doctorate) and married his spouse, Julian Marsh, in New York last year. He'll now get all benefits of not only marriage, but other important rights, including the ability to get an actual job. And he gets to be a small footnote to a historic event.

The speed with which Popov went from legal limbo to legal recognition is remarkable, but the Immigration and Citizenship Services agency was ready to act fast once DOMA was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on Wednesday. Numerous same-sex couples have applied for green cards and been denied on the grounds that their marriages are not recognized by the federal government. However, ICS has kept all the applications for the last two years on file in anticipation of the court ruling on the matter and has immediately reserved all their decisions automatically. As long as there are no other issues with the application, they'll head back into the system and eventually to permanent status.

Cases like Popov's (gay immigrants hoping to achieve citizenship through marriage had become a key debate point in the ongoing fight over immigration reform, but the Supreme Court ruling has made that discussion moot. Popov's case also underlines how quickly the Obama Administration is working to implement the changes in law that the end of DOMA has created.

Despite the good news, there's another fight ahead for Popov, his husbands, and thousands of other same-sex couples across the country. Although they were legally married in New York, Popov and Marsh live in Florida. That puts them in the unusual circumstance of having their marriage recognized by Washington, but not by the state where they live.

**Ahtman**

Frazzled wrote:
1. Amazingly, there's no evidence to suport the claim that there were weddings before religion.

Unless you didn't quote that part, they said before Christianity, not before religion.

**Frazzled**

Ahtman wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
1. Amazingly, there's no evidence to suport the claim that there were weddings before religion.

Unless you didn't quote that part, they said before Christianity, not before religion.

I am a servant of the Flame of Urun. Your facts and logic will not avail you!

**cincydooley**

Amazing how fast a green card can get processed when it plays a part in new media 'hotness.'

I agree with Frazzled, I think it was, in that all couples that want protection and benefits under the law should simply be called civil unions. Had this been the case in the first place, there'd have been no 'defense of marriage' to begin with.

Also, while I don't personally care who marries who, It's pretty offensive and closed minded to automatically label anyone opposed to homosexual marriage a bigot. I realize having religious conviction these days is a bit passe', but people are allowed to maintain their beliefs without being a bigot, particularly when they can make a pretty solid claim that evolution (not god) and nature didn't intend for two people of the same sex to reproduce together.

Regardless, I hope they clean this up quickly and get done with the other media hotness (abortion) so we can finally get to cleaning the finances up in the US.

**Seaward**

cincydooley wrote:
Amazing how fast a green card can get processed when it plays a part in new media 'hotness.'

I agree with Frazzled, I think it was, in that all couples that want protection and benefits under the law should simply be called civil unions. Had this been the case in the first place, there'd have been no 'defense of marriage' to begin with.

Also, while I don't personally care who marries who, It's pretty offensive and closed minded to automatically label anyone opposed to homosexual marriage a bigot. I realize having religious conviction these days is a bit passe', but people are allowed to maintain their beliefs without being a bigot, particularly when they can make a pretty solid claim that evolution (not god) and nature didn't intend for two people of the same sex to reproduce together.

Regardless, I hope they clean this up quickly and get done with the other media hotness (abortion) so we can finally get to cleaning the finances up in the US.

Godspeed through the maelstrom, little sailboat. Godspeed.

**Dreadclaw69**

cincydooley wrote:
Amazing how fast a green card can get processed when it plays a part in new media 'hotness.'

Yup. I'm still waiting on mine too, the USCIS website has them working on dates just after we submitted out paperwork so I'd like to hope that our application is finally being looked at.

**cincydooley**

Seaward wrote:
Godspeed through the maelstrom, little sailboat. Godspeed.

Haha, I don't think I said anything to controversial there, did I?

**Frazzled**

Something about focusing on the USA's financial problems after this gets cleared up. HAHAH

**cincydooley**

Frazzled wrote:
Something about focusing on the USA's financial problems after this gets cleared up. HAHAH

Heh, is that controversial?

I thought it was something everyone in the states would hope we'd fix?

Seriously though, I think social issues like these, while important, just aren't as important as our fiscal situation. If it were up to me, we'd stop letting people on the poles of either party dictate policy and let all the reasonable folks that sit more towards the middle actually get gak done.

And yes, I realize it's a pipe dream, but c'est la vie.

**Frazzled**

You would be wrong in that. Very few in Washington want to fix that.

**cincydooley**

Frazzled wrote:
You would be wrong in that. Very few in Washington want to fix that.

Good Call.

I'll restate: most of "We the People" want it fixed

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:
You would be wrong in that. Very few in Washington want to fix that.

Well, they want it fixed, but they want it fixed in such a way that their constituents (actual and partisan) benefit; which leads to a minimum of 536 different, relevant opinions.

**grayshadow87**

Frazzled wrote:
You would be wrong in that. Very few in Washington want to fix that.

Precisely. Social issues are what get people riled up and gets them to stop thinking about more crucial matters, so they'd rather "solve" them instead.

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
You would be wrong in that. Very few in Washington want to fix that.

Well, they want it fixed, but they want it fixed in such a way that their constituents (actual and partisan) benefit; which leads to a minimum of 536 different, relevant opinions.

I would disagree. I don't think many of them see it as an issue. I don't think many of them can even count.

**dogma**

grayshadow87 wrote:

Precisely. Social issues are what get people riled up and gets them to stop thinking about more crucial matters, so they'd rather "solve" them instead.

In the current political environment there is no distinction between social and financial issues nor, honestly, is there ever one.

The US could end Medicare but a lot of old people, and their children, would get very mad.

**Dreadclaw69**

grayshadow87 wrote:
Precisely. Social issues are what get people riled up and gets them to stop thinking about more crucial matters, so they'd rather "solve" them instead.

As well as that they're a sure fire way to energize your voter base. No one wants to deal with having to make harsh cuts that could impact their supporters and lose them votes.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:

I would disagree. I don't think many of them see it as an issue.

Then why have there been repeated battles over the budget?

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

I would disagree. I don't think many of them see it as an issue.

Then why have there been repeated battles over the budget?

Because they don't see it as an issue. If they did there wouldn't be a battle.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:

Because they don't see it as an issue. If they did there wouldn't be a battle.

If everyone agreed there would be no disagreement.

**Ensis Ferrae**

dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

Because they don't see it as an issue. If they did there wouldn't be a battle.

If everyone agreed there would be no disagreement.

The problem here isn't that they don't agree the money needs fixin'. The problem is that they each think they have the best, and well, ONLY solution to fixin the money, and all those other gits is dead wrong.

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

Because they don't see it as an issue. If they did there wouldn't be a battle.

If everyone agreed there would be no disagreement.

Exactly.

**SilverMK2**

cincydooley wrote:
but people are allowed to maintain their beliefs without being a bigot, particularly when they can make a pretty solid claim that evolution (not god) and nature didn't intend for two people of the same sex to reproduce together.

How is being married anything to do with evolution and nature or indeed, reproduction?

**KalashnikovMarine**

Indeed, marriage is an unnatural act, simply because we created it. it's a social construct and can mean or be whatever the hell we want it to.

**hotsauceman1**

Marriage is, but monogamy isnt, humans, indeed many apes, mate for life.

**Alfndrate**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
Marriage is, but monogamy isnt, humans, indeed many apes, mate for life.

I actually think that we might be too far removed from humans mating for life simply because of the social construct that is a marriage/civil union/partnership/what have you in that we as a species have had this concept of marriage and a union for life for too long. We are also too far removed from our ancestors to know what it was truly like before we "developed" into a creature with a complex social order that we have had for what 5,000 to 10,000 years? I'm not sure if there is sound evidence, but I believe most animals that mate for life mate for life and don't actually take on second mates... If chimps are our closest "relatives" it might be safe to assume that early humans did not mate for life as neither do chimps.

**hotsauceman1**

Well some point along the line we decided that mating for life was a good idea. It could have come with the advent of society and concept of ownership came into play, where you want to be sure the child you are giving your stuff to is indeed yours.

**SilverMK2**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
Marriage is, but monogamy isnt, humans, indeed many apes, mate for life.

Monogomy can certainly be a social construct - there are plenty of societies which have had vastly different ideas of relationships between men and women, or men and men for that matter. The vast majority of animals are certainly not engaging in manogamy.

**Alfndrate**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
Well some point along the line we decided that mating for life was a good idea. It could have come with the advent of society and concept of ownership came into play, where you want to be sure the child you are giving your stuff to is indeed yours.

Scope my edits

...

Like I said, we don't know what it was like before someone decided, "man and woman mate time and are mated for life" or w/e was said.

**KalashnikovMarine**

and even if we're partially inclined to be monogamous by nature, what does that matter for marriage as a legal concept?