Export thread

http://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/12-00307qp.pdf

12-307 UNITED STATES V. WINDSOR

QUESTION PRESENTED:
Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines the term "marriage" for all
purposes under federal law, including the provision of federal benefits, as "only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife." 1 U.S.C. 7. It similarly defines the term "spouse" as "a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

The question presented is:
Whether Section 3 of DOMA violates the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal
protection of the laws as applied to persons of the same sex who are legally married under
the laws of their State.

IN ADDITION TO THE QUESTION PRESENTED BY THE PETITION, THE PARTIES
ARE DIRECTED TO BRIEF AND ARGUE THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
WHETHER THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH’S AGREEMENT WITH THE COURT BELOW
THAT DOMA IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL DEPRIVES THIS COURT OF JURISDICTION
TO DECIDE THIS CASE; AND WHETHER THE BIPARTISAN LEGAL ADVISORY
GROUP OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HAS ARTICLE
III STANDING IN THIS CASE.

Click to expand...

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.

It really looks like they are going to overturn DOMA, which means that a state's rights to determine marriage > federal. So, this actually bolsters prop 8.

Having said that, it opens the way for a couple of things. First a brain drain from states which discriminate against same-sex couples as they look for a different place to live. Second, it opens another avenue of lawsuits when a couple married in one state is not recognized in another and therefore denied rights.

So while DOMA is probably going, going, gone, it only open other fights between state's rights against those of the individual or federal.

DOMA may be overturned, but that wouldn't affect the way out-of-state marriages are treated. If someone is legally married in one state, it must be recognized in all states. That's not DOMA, it's the constitution.

Tress said:

DOMA may be overturned, but that wouldn't affect the way out-of-state marriages are treated. If someone is legally married in one state, it must be recognized in all states. That's not DOMA, it's the constitution.

Click to expand...

As I said, that will be the next step in the march toward equality. I assume that someone married in Iowa same sex won't be recognized in Arizona, which will bring about the next round of lawsuits, if they already do not exist.

Racial equality is constitutional as well, but look how long it took for the states to all fall into line.

Dave said:

Racial equality is constitutional as well, but look how long it took for the states to all fall into line.

Click to expand...

I think Mississippi was the last to officially ratify it, and only recently.

Anybody else think it's ironic that Republicans are perfectly willing to defend the inheritance tax, but only when it's targeting THE GAYS?! WTF guys...

They are very likely to rule on this tomorrow.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdf[DOUBLEPOST=1372255734][/DOUBLEPOST]

DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment.

Click to expand...

stienman said:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdf

Click to expand...

As far as I can tell from a really quick read-through, that's a good thing, right? Hurray.


Oh, sure, ninja me with the important quote

Well this will make the next ruling interesting.

Good.

Good.

Copycat.

Copycat.

dave, do you wanna get gay married?

Charlie Don't Surf said:

dave, do you wanna get gay married?

Click to expand...

I can gay marry the two of you. It's kinda my thing now.

I believe polygamy is still illegal, though.

Krisken said:

I believe polygamy is still illegal, though.

Click to expand...

Not for long. Soon people will be marrying animals, plants, you name it. It will be CHAOS!

You know, just like when we let interracial couples marry.

*shudder*

Tress said:

Not for long. Soon people will be marrying animals, plants, you name it. It will be CHAOS!

You know, just like when we let interracial couples marry.

*shudder*

Click to expand...

I'm still against that. Humans and elves just don't mix!

Ravenpoe said:

I'm still against that. Humans and elves just don't mix!

Click to expand...

Ravenpoe said:

I'm still against that. Humans and elves just don't mix!

Click to expand...

Psh. That's not what my Legolas/Gimli slash-fiction says.

GIMLI IS A DWARF YOU IGNORANT SLUT!!!

So wait, NOW is my traditional marriage destroyed? Someone on FB said this invalidated traditional marriage. Does that mean I get to date again or something? I really don't know if I'm ready to date again.

Now, now Espy, can you truly claim your marriage was ever traditional?

This asshole's twitter is pretty amazing. https://twitter.com/BryanJFischer

https://twitter.com/BryanJFischer/status/350011942242500609
https://twitter.com/BryanJFischer/status/349892707637927937

It's diluted marriage somewhat, but hasn't had nearly the effect that past events have. Birth control, abortion, the sexual revolution, and the increasing selfishness of each generation changed marriage and what it means for most people far, far more than this one court ruling.

stienman said:

It's diluted marriage somewhat, but hasn't had nearly the effect that past events have. Birth control, abortion, the sexual revolution, and the increasing selfishness of each generation changed marriage and what it means for most people far, far more than this one court ruling.

Click to expand...

Turning marriage into some shclep about love and foregoing arrangements forever destroyed marriage.

Chad Sexington said:

This asshole's twitter is pretty amazing. https://twitter.com/BryanJFischer

https://twitter.com/BryanJFischer/status/350011942242500609
https://twitter.com/BryanJFischer/status/349892707637927937

Click to expand...

I love this response:

Mildred vonHildegard said:

@BryanJFischer It's true, I was just issued my 'straight person' arm badge. The ovens are waiting for us, Bryan. Never forget.

Click to expand...

[DOUBLEPOST=1372288850][/DOUBLEPOST]

stienman said:

It's diluted marriage somewhat, but hasn't had nearly the effect that past events have. Birth control, abortion, the sexual revolution...

Click to expand...

Sorry, are those supposed to be bad things?

Tress said:

Sorry, are those supposed to be bad things?

Click to expand...

No need to apologize!

I'd say that birth control is a good thing, the sexual revolution was good and bad, abortion for convenience was bad, and increasing selfishness is bad.

But they each have undeniably changed marriage more than this ruling, which was my point.

stienman said:

I'd say that birth control is a good thing, the sexual revolution was good and bad, abortion for convenience was bad, and increasing selfishness is bad.

Click to expand...

1) I agree, 2) I think it was a lot more good than any bad, 3) Agree though I support abortion being safe and legal, 4) And obviously agree.

But they each have undeniably changed marriage more than this ruling, which was my point.

Click to expand...

Gotcha.

I honestly believe that, in a few decades, this will become the non-issue that interracial marriages are now. I think opponents are going to keep raising hell over this issue until, all of a sudden, it's the norm and western society has not crumbled.

stienman said:

the sexual revolution was good and bad,.

Click to expand...

lol, man, you were really born in the wrong millenium

Twitter gold:

Dave Holmes ‏@DaveHolmes 14h
As we celebrate today, let's spare a warm thought for our opponents, who have lost absolutely nothing. #DOMA

Openly gay lawmaker in Pennsylvania barred from discussing DOMA because of "God's law"

Goddamn, Pennsylvania is stupid. I really didn't know how stupid Pennsylvania was until the last few years, but sheesh. This is unconstitutional, correct? It doesn't like it fits into the debated separation of church and state--this is pretty cookie cutter acknowledging a specific religion as higher than the law.

Quotemander Prime said:

Openly gay lawmaker in Pennsylvania barred from discussing DOMA because of "God's law"

Goddamn, Pennsylvania is stupid. I really didn't know how stupid Pennsylvania was until the last few years, but sheesh. This is unconstitutional, correct? It doesn't like it fits into the debated separation of church and state--this is pretty cookie cutter acknowledging a specific religion as higher than the law.

Click to expand...

Welcome to Pennsyltucky.

Probably the best take I've seen on it.



EDIT: Liberty and Justice for all.

--Patrick