The Blaze:
The Supreme Court’s historic rulings on gay marriage have people on both sides of the debate responding strongly. As TheBlaze previously reported, the majority of justices struck down a key part of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) this morning — and subsequently also threw out the contentious Prop 8 appeal (read that decision here). As for DOMA, there may be some confusion surrounding what, exactly, was included in the original 1996 law and which parts of the legislation that was signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton have been axed.
To begin, the portion of the DOMA law that was ruled against in United States v. Windsor is a provision that denies benefits to legally-married gay couples. Same-sex couples, under federal law, will now, as a result of the ruling, be considered “married.” But before today, under Sec. 7 of the law, marriage was explicitly confined to unions between men and women.
“In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife,’” reads the law.
It is this portion that will no longer stand.
For those wondering about the ruling’s impact, consider that DOMA, a relatively short law in terms of length, had, until today, massive and sweeping jurisdiction. As CBS News notes, the provision impacted 1,100 federal laws, ranging from veterans’ benefits to complex federal tax laws.
Despite 12 states having legalized gay marriage on the books (13 if you include California), 130,000 same-sex couples were, until today’s DOMA ruling, considered unmarried under U.S. (federal) law.
But those headlines proclaiming that the federal marriage law has been overturned are going a bit too far in their analysis. While it is true that the heart of the provision has been ruled unconstitutional, some parts of DOMA still stand. Policy Mic has more:
Section 2, which was not considered by the Supreme Court in the Windsor case, declares that states and territories of the United States have the right to deny recognition of same-sex marriages that originated in other states or territories.
Same-sex couples face several major problems that arise from Section 2 of DOMA. If a same-sex couple is married in Vermont, for example, and moves to Pennsylvania, their marriage is no longer valid.
@George Wells:
That’s correct and I didn’t say otherwise, but it was up to the state to decide and they did legally. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Ca decided that they were the ‘real’ lawmakers for the state of Ca. That’s not the way it’s supposed to be. The Ca judges that violated the law should be impeached.
It should be noted that every time I used an example, I said ‘when a legal law was passed’. Your example is ridiculous and doesn’t deserve a response. Racism is clearly illegal. But use an example such as I did, i.e., two first cousins (of any race). Then apply your reasoning and you’ll see where you fail.
You still are only dealing with clearly unconstitutional cases. Not worth commenting on, I made that exception already. Use an example such as I did. For example a state tax on only the top 2%. Would clearly be legal and not unconstitutional but does impose the tyranny of the majority. Attack that.
And that was my point. That’s why the Fed was wrong, it wasn’t any of their business.
George you seem to want to argue cases that are clearly unconstitutional. I have no time for such trivialities. But here’s one, what if two homo guys, that are first cousins, want to marry in a state where it is not legal for first cousins to marry? Does the Fed decision that allows gays to marry stand in this case, or is it just the State’s business as to whether to allow first cousins to marry or not?
Stay with examples that are not unconstitutional, according to the US constitution and don’t waste both of our times on your day dreams.
@Redteam #56:
I have been answering you in a respectful manner befitting the gravity of the subject, and because I thought that you were interested in a civil discussion. If you want to accuse me of daydreaming, or of wasting your time, or if you intend to refer to the proponents of gay rights as a bunch of “homos,” then I was wrong to engage you in this conversation.
You know folks, the funniest thing about the gay debate is that it’s not about law or what the government says — indeed, virtually no laws against us were ever enforced — it was illegal to serve alcohol to known homosexuals for decades — gay bars hummed along fine with licenses, and police protection.
The gay thing is personal, it’s emotional – it’s what a family does with the gay guy they raised — this isn’t about what you think at all … my extended family on three continents in two languages is pro-gay — for they are pro-me — and every other gay guy did the same thing — talked to their families. We are the ultimate in grass roots organizing, and you people think there’s some lobby directing all this, yeesh.
You are arguing over us as a policy, as if what you do will affect what we do — as something you can pass a law about, and thus effect change you wish — as if we were the tax code or something.
It makes no difference what the court ruled this time around – it’s just mush in the middle of the game — what matters is the touch down — which we shall achieve. One way we did this was to talk to every heterosexual we knew (what you think I was doing for the past 40 years before I came here, I don’t know.) And if the court had ruled against us 100% as so many wanted, then we’d just get up in the morning and go back to arguing with you all. Just like when Bowers was handed down that said gay sex could be illegal — and not a person did a thing — no gay nothing was shut down, no gay men were arrested — and no gay men rioted or protested — we just went and talked to more heterosexuals.
In fact, however, in the states with “sodomy” statutes — the governors, attorney generals, and police did absolutely nothing after their laws were upheld — they were derelict in their duty 100% — they had a piece of paper in their hand, and they smoked it. They were either incompetent in not finding any gay men — despite millions of us marching and published gay guides — or they thought we would follow some silly law.
But you all keep arguing this ethereal “but we’ll have a law!” and we gay men will continue to discuss it with you all until you agree with us — or you go screaming into the night. So strong are we on this — that there’s no way to end the debate you’re having but to agree with us. I’m sorry, but that’s the way it is. We are the rugged individual which you wish — self-supporting, taxpaying, no social problems. Your problem with us is that you don’t wish us to be happy, (and often don’t even think we can, amazingly,) and the Declaration of Independence is clear: All Men Are Endowed With Certain Inalienable Rights by Their Creator … liberty, you know? And if you think your Creator didn’t create gay men, fine — mine did.
My recommendation is to not bother with us, and this last hurdle done, soon, because we are so few unless you actually know one of us personally — and there being a gay man in every extended family whether you wish to admit it or not — you won’t have to deal with the issue. You are torturing yourselves. Smile, be happy, and soon America will be over it’s gay obsession — and get back to more important matters.
@Redteam #56:
The point of discussing a “clearly unconstitutional” case is not to “argue,” but to provide an obvious example of a case in which the Supreme Court does legitimately overturn an act of the legislature. Legislatures do enact unconstitutional laws from time to time. But in the same way that all defendants are considered innocent until proven guilty, all enacted laws are considered legal and lawful until determined otherwise by the courts. This is why the SCOTUS was so confused by the Obama administration’s decision to NOT defend DOMA (which may have been unconstitutional but which was legal and lawful until found otherwise by the courts) but to at the same time allow the U.S. Treasury to cash Windsor’s $300,000 estate tax check. It is also why the SCOTUS was within its rights to overturn DOMA Section 3.
To your question regarding first cousin, same-sex marriage rights: currently half of the states allow heterosexual first cousin marriages and half do not. 25-to-25. The SCOTUS has not ever taken up this subject to my knowledge, but the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution compels the states that disallow first cousin marriages to honor such marriages conducted in states that do allow them. The state you offer as your example would disallow the gay-first-cousin marriage because of the marriage’s first-cousin flaw, and that would be enough to keep the Feds out of the case. On the other hand, if the gay couple’s home state was one of the states that allow gay marriage but forbid first cousin marriage, the couple in your example COULD marry in a state that did allow both conditions and then return home. Their home state would then be compelled to honor their marriage because of the Constitution’s FF&C clause. Conversely, if their state was one of the 37 that don’t allow gay marriage (you didn’t specify which it was), then the home state would not be compelled to honor the example marriage in any event because DOMA, Section 2 is still in effect.
You asked: “Does the Fed decision that allows gays to marry stand in this case?” Well, as there IS no ”Fed decision that allows gays to marry,” I guess that the best answer would be “No.”
@Geoege Wells: George, the point I was making was that you don’t use ‘serious’ examples. As I said, I attempted to use reasonable examples to demonstrate my point, then you come out with “can’t marry a black and a white’ an obvious and illegal situation and want to use that as some point. That is a waste of time, mine and yours. How about mine. You said the courts and the constitution are to protect the tyranny of the majority and I used a perfectly good example of why and how that is not true. (the top 2% getting a tax increase). The constitution is only to protect the minority in obviously illegal situations, such as ‘only raising taxes on black people.
@Jim Hlavac:
I simply do not believe this. Tell me one state and what the law said about not serving homosexuals.
Just think Jim, if your mother and father were like you, you wouldn’t be here.
@George Wells:
. As you well know, the decision I referred to was the recent DOMA case. which allows gays to marry as long as it’s legal in the state where they reside.
I think you’re interpreting the FF and CC exactly backwards, but it’s not worth discussing. You seem to want it both ways. If it’s illegal in your home state, does not mean that you can go to another state and violate your states law then come back and they have to recognize it. If you think that’s true, get a legal gun in some other state and take it home to Chicago and see if it’s legal there.
You can’t get a drivers license in a neighboring state if you aren’t eligible in your home state (or even if you are, for that matter) and have it serve as your drivers license in your home state. FF and CC has it’s limitations.
@Redteam#62:
“the decision I referred to was the recent DOMA case. which allows gays to marry as long as it’s legal in the state where they reside.”
The DOMA decision said nothing about “allowing gays to marry.” Neither side asked the SCOTUS to affirm or deny a right to gay marriage, and the SCOTUS did not choose to visit the issue independently. Pointing out that the DOMA decision “allows gays to marry as long as it’s legal in the state where they reside” is about as useful as pointing out that the decision allows tennis balls to be made in different colors.
“If it’s illegal in your home state, does not mean that you can go to another state and violate your states law then come back and they have to recognize it. If you think that’s true, get a legal gun in some other state and take it home to Chicago and see if it’s legal there.”
My answer addressed YOUR question regarding first cousin marriage law, not gun law.
From the National Conference of State Legislatures:
“State Laws Regarding Marriages Between First Cousins”
“States generally recognize marriages of first cousins married in a state where such marriages are legal.”
When I answered your question, I knew that first-cousin marriages DID travel successfully into hostile states, and I assumed that FF and CC was the reason. But it is not.
“Full Faith and Credit does not require mandatory recognition of marriages around the country in the same way that it requires mandatory recognition of judgments by courts (which is its core function).”
Apparently, first-cousin marriage “transportation rights” are simply a “tradition.” So I apologize for being right in the fact but wrong in the reason.