http://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/12-00307qp.pdf
Her partner died, and though she was married the federal government taxed her inheritance at a high rate, as though they were friends rather than married because the federal government does not recognize same sex marriages. They were quite well off, and the inheritance tax alone was over $300,000 dollars.
The court below the supreme court ruled that DOMA is unconstitutional. Obama has directed his attorney or solicitor general not to defend DOMA in court, but as it's a law passed by congress he still has to execute it - he can't direct the IRS, for instance, to ignore it and tax same-sex couples as married couples in states that allow it, for instance.
He has, however, sent someone to the supreme court in order to ask that the lower court ruling be affirmed.
So the republican controlled house has put together a group to defend DOMA.
Which puts us in a very similar situation we saw yesterday with Prop 8. The court not only wants to know if the fifth amendment's equal protection is violated by DOMA, but also whether the house of representatives has the power to defend a law which the executive branch is supposed to defend but chooses not to.
Oral arguments are complete at this time, and like yesterday they are very interesting, but I don't have time to go through and summarize them. You can listen to or read them here:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=12-307
I'm really liking that the Supreme Court releases these same day. This is pretty neat. I wish congress would do the same - it's so difficult to track legislation...[DOUBLEPOST=1364409667][/DOUBLEPOST]One of the more interesting parts of the discussion was whether the federal government had any business at all defining marriage - something that the states themselves have typically dealt with.
This suggests that the two cases may end up being linked to some degree. If they rule that DOMA is invalid since the federal government haas no role in defining marriage, then that changes how they can rule on the Prop 8 case. Perhaps not by much, but it's an interesting interplay between the two cases.
This case is pretty interesting. The petitioner was with her same-sex partner for over 40 years, and were officially married in New York.
Her partner died, and though she was married the federal government taxed her inheritance at a high rate, as though they were friends rather than married because the federal government does not recognize same sex marriages. They were quite well off, and the inheritance tax alone was over $300,000 dollars.
The court below the supreme court ruled that DOMA is unconstitutional. Obama has directed his attorney or solicitor general not to defend DOMA in court, but as it's a law passed by congress he still has to execute it - he can't direct the IRS, for instance, to ignore it and tax same-sex couples as married couples in states that allow it, for instance.
He has, however, sent someone to the supreme court in order to ask that the lower court ruling be affirmed.
So the republican controlled house has put together a group to defend DOMA.
Which puts us in a very similar situation we saw yesterday with Prop 8. The court not only wants to know if the fifth amendment's equal protection is violated by DOMA, but also whether the house of representatives has the power to defend a law which the executive branch is supposed to defend but chooses not to.
Oral arguments are complete at this time, and like yesterday they are very interesting, but I don't have time to go through and summarize them. You can listen to or read them here:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=12-307
I'm really liking that the Supreme Court releases these same day. This is pretty neat. I wish congress would do the same - it's so difficult to track legislation...[DOUBLEPOST=1364409667][/DOUBLEPOST]One of the more interesting parts of the discussion was whether the federal government had any business at all defining marriage - something that the states themselves have typically dealt with.
This suggests that the two cases may end up being linked to some degree. If they rule that DOMA is invalid since the federal government haas no role in defining marriage, then that changes how they can rule on the Prop 8 case. Perhaps not by much, but it's an interesting interplay between the two cases.
