DOMA. Done.

Races for the Senate, U.S. House, etc. and other issues of national importance.
fennel
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3426
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 4:24 pm
Location: Inside the Green Zone, Madison

Re: DOMA. Done.

Postby fennel » Wed Jun 26, 2013 8:10 pm

I hadn't realized that DOMA affected not only federal employees but anyone who might receive federal benefits such as Social Security and federal tax benefits. Today's decision will most certainly put pressure on Wisconsin to repeal the anti-marriage amendment in order to attract investment and talent.

Thanks to Walker, Wisconsin is already a jobs-exporting state. That will be significantly exacerbated when local employers try to attract talent in a national market when they don't stack up against other states.

Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3453
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: DOMA. Done.

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Wed Jun 26, 2013 8:48 pm

fennel wrote:I hadn't realized that DOMA affected not only federal employees but anyone who might receive federal benefits such as Social Security and federal tax benefits. Today's decision will most certainly put pressure on Wisconsin to repeal the anti-marriage amendment in order to attract investment and talent.


Because it's quite clear that attracting investment and talent is so much more important to Walker and our legislators then sticking to ideology.

fennel
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3426
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 4:24 pm
Location: Inside the Green Zone, Madison

Re: DOMA. Done.

Postby fennel » Wed Jun 26, 2013 9:30 pm

Francis Di Domizio wrote:Because it's quite clear that attracting investment and talent is so much more important to Walker and our legislators then sticking to ideology.
Well, in terms of attracting investment in themselve$, you can be sure they'll evolve in a hurry.

Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3453
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: DOMA. Done.

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Wed Jun 26, 2013 9:41 pm

Walker may have already reached the pinnacle of evolution in that regards.

fennel
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3426
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 4:24 pm
Location: Inside the Green Zone, Madison

Re: DOMA. Done.

Postby fennel » Wed Jun 26, 2013 9:46 pm

Francis Di Domizio wrote:Walker may have already reached the pinnacle of evolution in that regards.
Aye. Ye shall know him henceforth by his true name: Gub'ner Nadir.

snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 12817
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: DOMA. Done.

Postby snoqueen » Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:41 pm

The more I dig into this the more confused (but hopeful) I get. The end of DOMA means (among many other things) gay married couples get the same tax treatment as any other married couple, right?

Does that extend to the state level? What I'm reading so far tonight is states that recognize gay marriage will have a lot of changes equalizing the status of gay and opposite-sex marriages while the rest of the states (including WI) will see less change (or more incomplete changes) because in this matter the feds basically still defer to the individual states as far as determining a couple's marital status.

There's a whole lot to be cleared up here regarding social security (status of survivor benefits in non-recognizing states?), federal income taxes, and much more.

Here's a place Wisconsin could be losing out as far as attracting workers:

Same-sex couples may still have trouble getting divorced if they move to a state that does not recognize gay marriage. States also have residency requirements for gaining access to their divorce courts. “Not to be unromantic about it, but if you have a choice of where to have your wedding, you may want to pick a state that allows you to end the marriage if some day you really need to,” [director of constitutional litigation at Lambda Legal] Ms. Sommer said.


from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/27/your- ... es.html?hp

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 21424
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: DOMA. Done.

Postby Henry Vilas » Thu Jun 27, 2013 7:24 am

Sno's comments got me thinking; I wonder how this section of the Constitution might come into play:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Article IV, Section 1

Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm
Contact:

Re: DOMA. Done.

Postby Stebben84 » Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:15 am

snoqueen wrote:There's a whole lot to be cleared up here regarding social security (status of survivor benefits in non-recognizing states?), federal income taxes, and much more.


Looks like the POTUS is looking into this:

He says as president, he believes federal benefits should be granted to couples married in a state that recognizes gay marriage even if they move to a state that doesn't.

Obama says he asked his lawyers to start evaluating how to update federal statutes to grant gay couples federal benefits even before the high court ruled.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/2 ... 08918.html

I guarantee whatever the president comes up with, someone is going to file a lawsuit. Or better yet, how about we try again for a constitutional ban. :roll:

Tim Huelskamp Readies Constitutional Amendment To Ban Gay Marriage

Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 8553
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: DOMA. Done.

Postby Huckleby » Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:30 am

The country is now on a clear glide path to full marriage equality.

There's an interesting parallel with interracial marriage. For a while, the SC played chicken and left the issue to the states. Then when there was inevitable momentum towards allowing blacks and whites to marry, the SC discovered new meaning in the constitution, "Ahh, fuck states rights, now we see that the constitution says you ought to be able to marry some strange."

"States rights" arguments are a joke, almost always. People raise "states rights" as a great principle exactly as long as it is of tactical advantage to their cause. People of all political persuasions are consistently inconsistent in backing states rights.

BTW, I am starting to get pissed at all the attention to the SC's rulings on gay rights. The rulings are a big deal, but the decision on Voting Rights impacts a much more troublesome issue. GAy rights fight is in good shape, the right to vote is a battle where conservatives hold upper hand at the moment. The SC issued the VRA decision first so it would be buried by the gay marriage media coverage.
Last edited by Huckleby on Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 21424
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: DOMA. Done.

Postby Henry Vilas » Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:38 am

Francis Di Domizio wrote:In any event the DOMA decision is a huge win for US citizens and for states rights.

What does that decision have to do with states rights, as DOMA was federal legislation?

rabble
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7709
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: DOMA. Done.

Postby rabble » Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:45 am

Huckleby wrote:BTW, I am starting to get pissed at all the attention to the SC's rulings on gay rights. The rulings are a big deal, but the decision on Voting Rights impacts a much more troublesome issue. GAy rights fight is in good shape, the right to vote is a battle where conservatives hold upper hand at the moment. The SC issued the VRA decision first so it would be buried by the gay marriage media coverage.

That occurred to me last night. We've done a wonderful job of suppressing the vote. Sure what the hell, let the gays get married.

Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 8553
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: DOMA. Done.

Postby Huckleby » Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:46 am

Henry Vilas wrote: What does that decision have to do with states rights, as DOMA was federal legislation?

The ruling on California was more directly respectful of states rights.

But on DOMA, the SC didn't address the part about states recognizing marriages from other states. States are going to be able to continue to ignore marriages from other states.

But as I was ranting, this is just a temporary phase. The respect for states rights is just a convenient excuse for the SC to make a more cautious decision. The ducks are in a row for the SC to legalize gay marriage nationally, it will happen in a few years, even if the composition of the court doesn't change.

Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 8553
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: DOMA. Done.

Postby Huckleby » Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:51 am

rabble wrote:
Huckleby wrote:BTW, I am starting to get pissed at all the attention to the SC's rulings on gay rights. The rulings are a big deal, but the decision on Voting Rights impacts a much more troublesome issue. GAy rights fight is in good shape, the right to vote is a battle where conservatives hold upper hand at the moment. The SC issued the VRA decision first so it would be buried by the gay marriage media coverage.

That occurred to me last night. We've done a wonderful job of suppressing the vote. Sure what the hell, let the gays get married.


E.J. Dionne expresses this view. The conservative establishment can live with a little sodomy here, a bit of pot puffing there, but when it comes to issues of raw power, it's balls-to-the-wall:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... ml?hpid=z2

Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3453
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: DOMA. Done.

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:10 am

Huckleby wrote:
Henry Vilas wrote: What does that decision have to do with states rights, as DOMA was federal legislation?

The ruling on California was more directly respectful of states rights.

But on DOMA, the SC didn't address the part about states recognizing marriages from other states. States are going to be able to continue to ignore marriages from other states


The federal government now is required to recognize any mariage as legally binding based on the laws of the state in which the mariage ocurred. In other words, the various states have the right to set the legal definition and requirments for mariage, and the federal government must accept that. I'd call that a state's rights win, wouldn't you?

It would have been nice to see the second part of DOMA fall as well, but based on the scope of the lawsuit in question, it was probably too much to hope for.

On the other hand, I'm curious if the federal recognition opens up more options for lawsuits on the state level. Since a mariage is a legally binding contract, can one state claim that a contract signed in another state is not valid?

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 21424
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: DOMA. Done.

Postby Henry Vilas » Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:17 am

Francis Di Domizio wrote:On the other hand, I'm curious if the federal recognition opens up more options for lawsuits on the state level. Since a mariage is a legally binding contract, can one state claim that a contract signed in another state is not valid?

That's why I brought up Article IV, Section i of the Constitution. But I remember a case from Wisconsin, where an adult male married a young girl (legally) in another state. The girl was too young to wed under Wisconsin law and when they returned to Wisconsin, he was arrested.


Return to “National Politics & Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: you must be joking and 4 guests