Same-Sex Marriage Update

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by SuperFemme

Snow is in FL running to the ocean to throw her phone in it after she had to listen to me sob and blow my nose and sob some more on the phone.

Oh. I've been bad. With Snowy that is ALWAYS a plus.

Next time you talk to her tell her I have been sarcastic and difficult to get along with, okay?

[SuperFemme]

Originally Posted by betenoire

Next time you talk to her tell her I have been sarcastic and difficult to get along with, okay?

too late. i did that yesterday. she wants to let you dig your hole deeper.

[Selenay]

..

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by SuperFemme

too late. i did that yesterday. she wants to let you dig your hole deeper.

See, I could tell she likes it when I'm obnoxious! I am very smart about these things.

[blackboot]

Have I told you all how much I love you, lately?

[Corkey]

Wait that wasn't the decision? Color me confuzzled.

[Stearns]

Decision still to come. Should be soon.

[Cyclopea]

Originally Posted by Corkey

Wait that wasn't the decision? Color me confuzzled.

In the U.S. marriage rights are decided by each state. It is each state’s “right” to decide upon and enact it’s own laws pertaining to marriage and divorce. That is why each state has different marriage and divorce requirements.

In 1996 a judge in the state of Hawaii ruled that gays and lesbians had the right to the same treatment under state marriage laws as everyone else. This groundbreaking ruling sent bigots and their elected representatives nationwide into a frenzy.

One of the few ways the federal government controls marriage rights is by deciding the ways in which the federal government interacts with married people as decided by the states. Federal law states that the agencies of the federal government (IRS, Social Security, Veterans Admin, etc etc) must treat marriages from each state equally, regardless of the ways states have decided to implement those laws.
And that each state must also recognize marriages from other states, even if those marriages were formed under different requirements (for example some states have a waiting period or residency requirement to get married, some- like Nevada with its booming Las Vegas wedding business- do not.) According to federal law a drunken marriage in las vegas or a marriage to an incarcerated death row serial killer is treated equally to a marriage in a state where those marriages would not be legally allowed due to state law. The federal government must treat marriages from each state equally, and each state must recognize marriages from other states, even if those marriages would not be permitted in that state. Most of the federal laws relating to this equality are the result of lawsuits based on states laws which forbid marriages based on race, even into the 1970s.

Hawaii’s groundbreaking same sex marriage legal ruling was ultimately undermined and delayed by various legal and political wranglings. But the national terror among bigots that states would be required, under federal law, to recognize legal marriages from other states EVEN IF THEY WERE GAY ONES resulted in Bill “free willy” Clinton enacting an amendment to the US Constitution (!!!) stating that the federal government would NOT recognize any state marriages between gays, even if a state legalized such a marriage (the feds could not outlaw states legalizing gay marriage because specific marriage laws are decided by each state). And that the federal government would NOT require all states to recognize marriages from other states if those marriages did not involve the new federal marriage standard of one man one woman. This constitutional amendment was called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Over 30 states also adopted state constitutional amendments stating that those states also will not recognize same sex marriages from other states or allow same sex marriages. Since these state amendments are purely discriminatory, they are (very slowly) being challenged and struck down one by one.

In some states gay marriage has been won, not through the courts, but through the legislature. This was the case in Hawaii, where the lawmakers passed a law legalizing civil unions through the political process rather than wait for the courts to inevitably order it. Yesterday the kooky-ass Hawaiian governor unilaterally VETOED the law that their legislature agreed upon. The same thing happened in Vermont after the legislature passed gay marriage through the political process, rather than in the courts. The kooky VT Governor vetoed it, then the legislature overrode the veto in special session. The legislature in Hawaii has declined to reconvene to override the kooky governor’s veto, because they are on the golf course, and they know that Lingle is a sitting duck wacko who will soon be gone and they will simply pass the damn thing again next session. This weirdo bigot Lingle actually invited the judge who wrote the original decision 17 years ago (which said that Hawaii marriage laws were discriminatory against gays and lesbians) to her press conference announcing her veto. Serious issues, lady, serious issues…

So wacko Lingle’s veto decision came yesterday.

And then HA HA HA today- The DOMA law which enshrined anti-gay bigotry in the US Constitution was OVERTURNED in federal court today on the grounds that it is DISCRIMINATORY. HAHAHAHAHA. Fuck you Lingle!
It was actually two decisions which came down today in federal court, based on two lawsuits filed in massachucetts, one filed by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) and one filed by Saint Martha Coakley, the attorney general of the state of massachucets. Each challenged DOMA on different grounds, the GLAD one filed on behalf of gay and lesbian married federal workers who were denied equal rights and benefits (family medical leave, social security, etc) by the federal government, and the Coakley one on the grounds that the federal government is infringing on the STATES RIGHTS of Massachusetts by forcing the state to discriminate against it’s own citizens and by discriminating against the STATE by unfair federal dispersal of various entitlement funds (COBRA- which is a federal program which subsidizes medical insurance costs for employers – but not for gay employees!) etc. Both lawsuits were somehow lumped together under the same judge and he issued rulings -STRONG STRONG rulings in both today.
“In his opinion, Tauro found that DOMA didn't even survive rational basis review, which is the least exacting form of constitutional scrutiny” National Law Review: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?i...f_Marriage_Act

The next decision being awaited is the Walker decision on the Prop 8 lawsuit which will decide whether california’s prop 8 law is constitutional. Because his online legal docket is blank for the rest of the month of July an imminent decision is being speculated- but that’s not certain, he can take as long as he wants.

Both the DOMA rulings today and the Prop 8 Walker decision (whichever way it goes) will ultimately be appealed to and decided by the supreme court. While today’s DOMA ruling definitely gives Walker more legal ammunition to overturn Prop 8, the real hope is that these DOMA rulings will reach the US Supreme Court before the prop 8 case, because the legal precendent set by the overturning of DOMA will lend immeasurable credence to the arguments in the prop 8 challenge.

The reason is that the prop 8 case does not address any of the clear financial ways in which the federal gov discriminates against gay marriage. The prop 8 case merely argues that civil unions are discriminatory because they are SOCIALLY inferior to marriages. Since civil unions confer all the same STATE rights as marriage, social discrimination is the only basis on which inequity can be argued on the state level. The blatant and outrageous ways in which civil unions are not equivielnt to marriage (taxes, social security, agricultural subsidies, etc etc ) are all FEDERAL marriage entitlements, which under DOMA are illegal anyway so that is a moot point in arguing for marriage over civil union on a state level. If SCOTUS overturns DOMA based on the two rulings today BEFORE the prop 8 case gets to SCOTUS, all the financial discrimination will be applicable to the prop 8 case and it can be argued on much more concrete ground than social discrimination.
At least that’s how I understand todays rulings and things going forward. Hope it made sense! If I see a good re-cap explaining things better I will post it.

All in All, The BEST NEWS we’ve had in 17 years.
I am very happy.
I am loving watching the ‘phobes and the religious reich squirm as they now attempt to support federal power and argue against the very state rights that they have been embracing for the last 50 years.

[Corkey]

Yea I knew all that, it wasn't the confusing problem, which has been solved. But thanks for taking the time to write that all out.