dagblog - Comments for "Red States and Blue States after DOMA"

Of course, this is all the

Verified Atheist — Sat, 29 Jun 2013 21:37:28 +0000

In reply to Litigation will be required.

Of course, this is all the more reason to prevent the Republicans from retaking the White House in 2016 (and beyond).

Litigation will be required.

jollyroger — Sat, 29 Jun 2013 04:34:25 +0000

In reply to What do you think would

Litigation will be required. Texas will win at the District and maybe even Circuit Court but lose at the supremes .

I think there's going to be a

Doctor Cleveland — Thu, 27 Jun 2013 21:47:43 +0000

In reply to Red States and Blue States after DOMA

I think there's going to be a mess, with much more litigation. Full faith and credit should eventually prevail, but I don't think states that have passed constitutional amendments forbidding same-sex marriage to roll over without going through another Supreme Court case, at least.

Here's a chart from the NY Times about how the federal government plans to proceed:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/26/us/scotus-gay-marriage.html

You'll notice that if you're married in one state but move to one where it's forbidden, your "federal benefits will vary by agency."

Immigration, the Defense Department, and VA considers you married wherever you go. The IRS and Social Security consider you not married if you're in a state that forbids your marriage. To this, I can only say: !

So, if you move from a pro-marriage state to an anti-marriage state, you can't file a joint tax return any more. Your Social Security benefits gets screwed up. And if one spouse passes away, the other gets consoled with a massive inheritance tax because they're "not married." Fun times.

What do you think would

Verified Atheist — Thu, 27 Jun 2013 10:28:43 +0000

In reply to "Full faith and credit" will

What do you think would happen, however, if a gay couple living in Texas and married in Massachusetts filed as married on their Texas state income tax returns? Would Texas just allow it? Although I think such a couple would have an excellent chance in court (under the "full faith and credit" clause), I suspect at least one couple will have to go to court before that's fait accompli.

"Full faith and credit" will

jollyroger — Thu, 27 Jun 2013 04:37:31 +0000

In reply to Red States and Blue States after DOMA

"Full faith and credit" will trump local refusal to issue licenses. Just as the Saudi princes could check into the Houston Hilton with four wives yet fear no bigamy beef, so will married in Massachusetts be married in Texas. DOMA excluded marriage equality from the full faith and credit clause ( unconstitutionally, of course) because it was obvious that absent such exclusion it was "game over" as soon as even one state legalized marriage equality.

That is interesting, I hadn't

ocean-kat — Thu, 27 Jun 2013 03:54:45 +0000

In reply to Correct me if I'm wrong (and

That is interesting, I hadn't thought of that. I wonder if we'll see a lot of people taking vacations in states that have passed marriage equality laws and going home married. I wonder if some states will take advantage of that to make some extra cash selling marriage licenses, like Nevada does. I wonder if there's some areas in the law where being "federally married" but not married in this state would cause a conflict between state and federal law.

The economics are huge here.

Michael Maiello — Thu, 27 Jun 2013 00:02:07 +0000

In reply to Red States and Blue States after DOMA

The economics are huge here. There are going to be states where it will just be hard for certain companies to recruit workers. It will especially have an effect as it affects the lives of executives.

Correct me if I'm wrong (and

Verified Atheist — Wed, 26 Jun 2013 23:17:04 +0000

In reply to Red States and Blue States after DOMA

Correct me if I'm wrong (and it's entirely possible), but if homosexuals get married in Massachusetts, they'll still be married even in Ohio as far as the federal government is concerned, right? I realize that Ohio wouldn't recognize the marriage (which would still be frustrating), but as far as federal taxes you'd be able to file as married, right? And federal inheritance laws would still treat you as if you're married, right?

This is my understanding of the recent ruling, so correct me if I'm wrong.