 |
I agree with Scalia for the same reason I stated in comment # 58 .
The court just refuse to hear the California gay marriage case (the constitutional amendment voted for by the people of California aka Prop 8 )... which means that the lower court ruling that declared the California amendment unconstitutional stands.
Hello again,
Looks to me like the question of gay rights is OVER for all time. You?
excon
Not at all, read Roberts' dissent.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Like Speech said yesterday we have come a long way, and things have gotten better with race relations so I hope he feels the same about gender relations.
We've had that discussion, I made my concessions years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
From Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog:
A follow-up rom Kevin Russell at SCOTUSBlog:Quote:
Details on United States v. Windsor: In Plain English
The federal Defense of Marriage Act defines “marriage,” for purposes of over a thousand federal laws and programs, as a union between a man and a woman only. Today the Court ruled, by a vote of five to four, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy, that the law is unconstitutional. The Court explained that the states have long had the responsibility of regulating and defining marriage, and some states have opted to allow same-sex couples to marry to give them the protection and dignity associated with marriage. By denying recognition to same-sex couples who are legally married, federal law discriminates against them to express disapproval of state-sanctioned same-sex marriage. This decision means that same-sex couples who are legally married must now be treated the same under federal law as married opposite-sex couples.
Quote:
To be clear: Windsor does not establish a constitutional right to same sex marriage. It was important to the outcome that the couple in the case was legally married under state law. The equal protection violation arose from Congress’s disrespecting that decision by New York to allow the marriage.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
The equal protection violation arose from Congress’s disrespecting that decision by New York to allow the marriage.
I don't know WHO Kevin Russell is, but he doesn't understand the equal protection clause. I've TRIED to decipher what he's saying, but it's INDECIPHERABLE. It has NOTHING to do with congress disrespecting what a state did... NOTHING!
Excon
Not even close. There is nothing (yet) that requres states to recognize gay marriage. Only the federal government is now obligated to recognize it for residents of states and the District of Columbia that allow it. It is not at all clear what the status will be of gay couples who marry in one state where gay marriage is legal and then move to another where it is not. For example a gay couple who marries in NY are now able to file federal income taxes as married, but if they then move to TX where gay marriage is not recognized they may not be allowed to continue to file as married on their federal income tax. I see many more court cases coming over issues like this.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello e:Quote:
I see many more court cases coming over issues like this.
I didn't say that there isn't some cleaning up to do. I'm just saying, for all practical purposes, the argument AGAINST same sex marriage has been LOST.
By the way, a regular old fashioned LEGAL marriage between a man and a women IS recognized in EVERY state. I don't know why a LEGAL gay marriage wouldn't qualify under the same law..
Excon
The state doesn't have to recognize gay marriage and has nothing to do with federal tax returns. The IRS cannot deny filing federal taxes of legally married couples regardless of the state laws. At least that's my take on the ruling.
I think the states will have no choice . The 'Full Faith and Credit ' clause will be the next same sex battle that will work it's way up the court system.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
It is unsettled at best. The problem is that the federal government cannot make the decision as to whether the couple is married or not - they must acquiesce to the determination of the state where the couple resides. In my example if the couple are residents of TX, TX determines whether they are married or not, and as it stands now even though the couple was legally married in NY they are not considered married by TX where they live. Thus they can't file for federal benefits as a married couple, whether it means filing a joint federal tax return, applying for social security benefits, veterans benefits etc. Like I said - batten down the hatches for more law suits!Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Hello tal:
Certainly, a gay couple will file a state tax return. Is the state required to accept it? I don't know if they are or not. If they decide to divorce, is the state required to let them use their courts and laws? I don't know if they are or not.
What I DO know, is that IF the states DON'T treat gay marriages exactly like they do regular marriages, they'll get sued under the equal protection clause, and the states will LOSE.
We DON'T have second class citizens in this country...
excon
A marriage license has always been sufficient for federal benefits no matter the state and that should/will apply to same sex marriages. I notice all the SCOTUS rulings so far have left further relief for people of standing to pursue relief through the courts. I don't see states challenging the federal law.
Oh how big of them !Quote:
I notice all the SCOTUS rulings so far have left further relief for people of standing to pursue relief through the courts.
There is no federal law now . It was ruled unconstitutional . So it does go back to States power . Also ,there is NO federal law that makes the Federal government recognize marital benefits for gay couples . That will be another court case .Quote:
I don't see states challenging the federal law.
Again, with these rulings nothing changes at the state level. We have discussed this in previous threads - a gay couple who moves to a state where gay marriage is not recognized is not considered to be married. So no - they cannot file a joint state income tax return and they cannot get divorced in that state, because you have to be married to be divorced, and the state says they aren't married. So to get a divorce they have to go to a state where gay marriage is recognized.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Extra credit question: if a gay married couple moves to a state where their marriage is not recognized, and they split up without a divorce (because they can't get a divorce in that state), and then one of them gets married to someone of the opposite sex - is it bigamy? Answer: in Texas - no - but if they visit NY they could be subject to arrest.
The court held that legally married couples cannot be discriminated by the federal government and have to be treated as any other married couple. I doubt they would fight that as they didn't defend DOMA in the first place. Bet that a lot of old gay couples though will be looking for their money back.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Yeah I just read some more of the decision . This will keep the IRS busy .Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
I shoul add something about my previous answer: the court specifically left in place a part of DOMA that allows a state to not recognize a same sex marriage performed in another state. This is why a legally married gay couple can't file a joint state income tax return in a state that doesn't recognize same sex marriages.
That's my understanding also. With the divorce rate at about half, you other question about getting a divorce in states that don't even recognize gay marriage appears unanswerable at the moment.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:49 PM. |