Gay Marriage Cases Soon To Be Heard By American Supreme Court -- It's Complicated

[MrRealDeal]

Well oddly enough MrRealDeal was right 2 times in one day ! ..........

Prop 8 has no standing and DOMA ruled unconstitutional ......

[Jingthing]

OK, probably the biggest day for gay rights in American history.

But the fight goes on.

Still most state do not offer gay marriage.

Still there is the MESS of federal rights for gay married in some states, what happens when they move?

As I gleaned from Fox News, of all places, language in the DOMA decision opens up the potential of court challenges in ALL non-gay-marriage states to argue that their bans on same sex marriage are unconstitutional.

Another big issue which you'll be hearing more about is whether federal marriage rights should be recognized based on state of marriage CELEBRATION, rather than state of RESIDENCE.

One question I have, are there any current gay marriage states that allow gay marriage where both spouses are NOT state residents?

If so, or one does that in future, and the national rule turns to recognizing state of CELEBRATION, then marriage equality (at least federally) would be open to all Americans just by taking a trip to a celebration state.

This issue is going to be a BIG DEAL.

If state of celebration becomes the policy, then any state that allows marriages of two non-residents can certainly drum up some big tourism dollars!

Edited June 26, 2013 by Jingthing

[sustento]

Apply for UK citizenship Jing. It's much less complicated over here

[Jingthing]

Apply for UK citizenship Jing. It's much less complicated over here

I doubt they would have me, but thanks.

[MrRealDeal]

It would violate the 14th and 5th Amendments to not allow people to move from state to state by penalizing them financially ..... also already decided by VERY old case Law in what was the first "right to travel" case.

States can not diminish the rights granted under the Constitution or those decided\created by Supreme court rulings under Hertado v. California ..... which is not the first one I mentioned

Edited June 26, 2013 by MrRealDeal

[anon8]

DOMA down!

I love you, America!

[anon8]

Apply for UK citizenship Jing. It's much less complicated over here

Jing should marry me in order to obtain coveted Euro citizenship

[MrRealDeal]

When people move their federal rights stay intact, the only people who would raise an issue over taking away Federal rights by moving to another State would be people in the news with nothing better to talk about .... Legally it's an old hat issue , that doesn't mean some idiot won't try and make someone else sue to obtain their rights but it wouldn't go any further on the losing side than a District Court and if the idiots wanted to appeal it the SC wouldn't waste the time.

The risk one takes by doing that would be the SC would take a case over that if the District Court failed to do it's job properly and open themselves to a case that Would have standing to rule that Gay Marriage is a Right in every State rather than just rule that the benefits travel with you which is a non starter and absurd to try and argue against to the SC.

Honestly I can't imagine anyone making themselves look that stupid to try and argue in Court that Federal Rights only apply in certain States .... it's just so absurd it looks malicious to a Legal Scholar

News people arguing it is another story.

[MrRealDeal]

Their are a number of States that do not have a residency requirement CA , MA and CN that also allow Gay Marriage.

After listening to people today I finally understand why Marriage is actually important rather than another word.

Edited June 26, 2013 by MrRealDeal

[Jingthing]

When people move their federal rights stay intact, the only people who would raise an issue over taking away Federal rights by moving to another State would be people in the news with nothing better to talk about .... Legally it's an old hat issue , that doesn't mean some idiot won't try and make someone else sue to obtain their rights but it wouldn't go any further on the losing side than a District Court and if the idiots wanted to appeal it the SC wouldn't waste the time.

The risk one takes by doing that would be the SC would take a case over that if the District Court failed to do it's job properly and open themselves to a case that Would have standing to rule that Gay Marriage is a Right in every State rather than just rule that the benefits travel with you which is a non starter and absurd to try and argue against to the SC.

Honestly I can't imagine anyone making themselves look that stupid to try and argue in Court that Federal Rights only apply in certain States .... it's just so absurd it looks malicious to a Legal Scholar

News people arguing it is another story.

No, it's actually an unresolved issue.

[MrRealDeal]

It's a long resolved issue that your Federal rights travel with you from State to State ..... trying to argue that because you are Gay this long standing principle does not apply is simply malicious and well beyond absurd .... I know we argue a lot but trust me it's true ..... it won't even get to a Court because Obama will simply declare they are doing it and no State can tell them not to.

The principle is so ingrained in the Law it stops things like a DUI checkpoint on a State border , Makes it against the Law to bar someone from flying State to State because they don't have an ID , Makes an unreasonable waiting period for Welfare benefits when moving to a new State against the Law , It's what makes it illegal for one State to refuse your driving in another with a valid license from a different State ,

The right is used in numerous cases over vastly different things and is always only limited for a compelling reason that's in the public interest.... flying for example can allow a search but not an ID because a search is a reasonable limitation for flying but requiring an ID to move from State to State is not.

What makes it malicious is that there are literally dozens of cases where the right is restated over and over in the course of a Decision that didn't start with the already resolved question , Welfare people have that right , Drivers , it's so important States can't make checkpoints to keep Drunk drivers out of their States or keep them from leaving ! Imagine the Macarthy (sp?) era with the whole anti commie stuff ..... The right to travel freely was used as the reason it was Unconstitutional to keep them from getting passports and flying to Russia if they wanted to !

It's malicious because you need a "compelling reason in the public interest" and someone being Gay as your compelling reason in the public interest to limit their free travel, is just such an over the top, nasty, malicious thing to say, it makes me cringe just to type it.

And even you must be able to admit if something makes MrRealDeal cringe it has to be pretty awful ! lol

I won't argue that it's not an actual Law ..... But how on earth could you look at a court with a straight face who just told you Gay people have enough rights to not be barred from marriage benefits, in the opinion said the same rights as everyone else, but somehow have less rights than Drunk drivers and commies in the Macarthy era and don't have the right to travel freely from State to State without being harmed for doing it ?

Edited June 26, 2013 by MrRealDeal

[Jingthing]

No, this is a legal mess now with the state differences. You'll see. For example, Medicaid is a state AND federal system which treats single and married people differently. So a gay married couple moves from Vermont to Alabama, how does ALABAMA Medicaid view those two people, single or married? There are many many such complications coming up. This ain't over. It ain't over until there is TOTAL equality, all 50 states. The total win is inevitable now of course, but don't underestimate the complications coming up from the current MAJORITY of states who don't offer gay marriage during this MESSY phase.

You have a different opinion? Fine. Have it. I do not agree and assert the proof will become clear in the coming months and years.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

To add to this, section 2 of DOMA stands: exempts states from granting Full Faith and Credit to same-sex marriages performed in other states.

Think of the complications for MOVERS with taxes.

File as single for state and married for federal?

What a mess.

This mess cannot stand in the long run. But this is the phase that's happening now.

Like I said, these issues are really, really real and there is no doubt about it. This is a great article for people to read who think I am making this up. Of course, the good news is that President OBAMA is in power now. If that wasn't the case (or another pro civil rights president), this messy phase would surely be much worse.

Also no the problems of movers is not trivial. In the course of a long marriage, moving to different states would be very common, and currently most states are non-gay marriage states. Not to mention the place of celebration vs. residence issue where the couple never even lived in a legal state ... EVER.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/features/npr.php?id=195881288

"Where this becomes tricky is for the legally married couple in non-marry states," Sainz says.

...

But other agencies, including the Internal Revenue Service and the Social Security Administration, hew to a "place of residence" standard. Marriage has to be recognized in the place the couple is living for them to be eligible for those federal spousal benefits.

...

"It's a patchwork that makes no sense," Sainz says.

...

Same-sex marriage advocates predict, however, that with a Republican-dominated House, congressional action to resolve marriage definition disparities baked into law is unlikely. Congressional Democrats have written legislation that would uniformly apply a place of celebration standard, but it's unlikely to move beyond the Democratic-controlled Senate.

...

"It's a great day, but we have more litigation, more rule-making, and more work to do."

Edited June 26, 2013 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Uh oh, I just found out something with all this good news, this if true is really bad news. Social security as in social security survivor benefits for married couples. If this is really true, that ending DOMA doesn't allow gay married couples this equality and CONGRESS has to pass this, that is really bad news. Congress is NOT going to change that anytime soon, that's certain.

This inequality doesn't need to complication of the different states complication.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/26/the-supreme-court-struck-down-doma-heres-what-you-need-to-know/?hpid=z2

Other areas, like tax law, may require additional rule-making before same-sex couples are treated equally. “Some operate just based on policy, without getting into a regulation or statute, so those can be modified very quickly,” Tara Borelli, an attorney at Lambda Legal who was also a counsel in Golinski. ”Others require rule-making.” And others require statutory changes. Borelli notes that Social Security will probably have to be changed by Congress for same-sex couples to be treated equally.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Jingthing

[OldChinaHam]

I may be mistaken but still it is my humble opinion that the court does not do what is legally correct.

The court is just no more than a political entity which decides the way that Americans believe is Politically Correct.

I no longer have much faith in the supreme court of the US to do what I regard as the right thing.

I do not care if they decide in favor of what I prefer to see happen. I care that they do what is actually right.

This is the problem with the court, that they decide according to what is preferable for groups that I do not identify with.

So I would prefer that they decide not in favor of any interest group or pressure group.

Bending of the court happens far too often.

With Gay Marriage, I think most of us, as well as most people in the United States already know what is right.

But I do not expect too much on this issue.

I also do not expect too much from the court when it decides on other important decisions, such as the nature of corporations, and even on the nature of the US presidency, whether the will of the people should prevail.

If we had a court that would strictly be unbiased, then we could more easily have the rule of law in the US.

If China had the same, then China could have the rule of law in their country.

So it does not matter too much about what the court decides about Gay Marriage.

It only matters what the people have decided on this issue.

[Jingthing]

Gay red shirts at the supreme court!

This is a day for celebration.

About 57 million Americans now live in states with almost equality now. Similar population to Italy.

[Jingthing]

...

So it does not matter too much about what the court decides about Gay Marriage.

It only matters what the people have decided on this issue.

Some kind of POLITICAL system is a requirement.

[MrRealDeal]

Unconstitutional Laws take time to be changed the decision that made them that way came out 2 hours or so ago try and relax and watch things unfold with a reasonable amount of patience.

All I have done is explain why the Lawsuits will be absurd and malicious not say they won't happen and said they will lose at the district court level

I am saying that over the course of correction of this new wide reaching change it will happen mostly at lower court levels who will make correct equal rights decisions because of the Decision and Opinion.

You asked me if I have a different opinion then went on to say ... fine I don't agree ..... if you had let me answer the question I would have said I don't have a different opinion on the statements you made : There are many many such complications coming up. This ain't over. It ain't over until there is TOTAL equality, all 50 states. The total win is inevitable now of course.

What this thread was really about was what would the supreme court do today ..... I said prop 8 would not have standing and DOMA would be ruled unconstitutional

The main thing you stood on was the decision would not be especially earth shattering so as to not shock the public and things would progress but slowly, and equality means marriage .... I'm paraphrasing you of course

The Court Decision made us both correct so I really don't have anything else in this thread left to argue about !

Edited June 26, 2013 by MrRealDeal

[anon8]

I may be mistaken but still it is my humble opinion that the court does not do what is legally correct.

The court is just no more than a political entity which decides the way that Americans believe is Politically Correct.

The SC does what homophobes headed by Scalia want done. Luckily this time he was a minority vote. If SC did what was politically correct in USA in the year 2013, marriage equality would be law of the land.

[OldChinaHam]

I may be mistaken but still it is my humble opinion that the court does not do what is legally correct.

The court is just no more than a political entity which decides the way that Americans believe is Politically Correct.

The SC does what homophobes headed by Scalia want done. Luckily this time he was a minority vote. If SC did what was politically correct in USA in the year 2013, marriage equality would be law of the land.

I suppose everything is open to interpretation,

When you do not strictly follow the law.

[Scott]

This has been posted in the World News Section:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/649512-us-supreme-court-in-historic-rulings-on-gay-marriage/#entry6550341

[Jingthing]

As I predicted, the story now shifts to the COMPLICATIONS. (Obviously.)

Big questions remained unanswered for many same-sex couples across the country Wednesday, even after the gay rights advocates responded with jubilation to the Supreme Court’s 5 to 4 decision overturning a key element of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-courts-doma-decision-whats-next/2013/06/26/dfb05ff6-de9c-11e2-963a-72d740e88c12_story.html

[Jingthing]

More on the complications.

Aside from more court cases that are coming nationwide, these complications are going to dominate gay rights news for probably many years starting now:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-27/you-re-a-gay-couple-now-what-do-you-do-.html

The justices COULD HAVE prevented this with a wider ruling, but they chose not to, they chose this mess. It was still a win though.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Jingthing

[MrRealDeal]

I may be mistaken but still it is my humble opinion that the court does not do what is legally correct.

The court is just no more than a political entity which decides the way that Americans believe is Politically Correct.

The SC does what homophobes headed by Scalia want done. Luckily this time he was a minority vote. If SC did what was politically correct in USA in the year 2013, marriage equality would be law of the land.

That is true normally but if you look at who was on the side that voted Yes .... this is actually one of the admittedly Very few case where you had conservatives vote yes and liberals vote no ..... Take a look

So you general opinion is correct but in this case is not the case ...... rendering your additional remark that they are homophobes wrong as well.

[KED]

I agree that this is a big win for equal rights and am happy that the decisions went in what I believe to be the right direction. However, I am saddened that in the Prop 8 case, I feel SCOTUS dodged the issue and ruled on a technicality. Also, I feel very uncomfortable that 4 Supreme Court Justices, could in their supposed impartiality and Constitutional knowledge, vote against equal rights in marriage. While this is a step forward, I feel like SCOTUS showed itself to be political and not impartial at all.

Love is Love

[MrRealDeal]

I agree that this is a big win for equal rights and am happy that the decisions went in what I believe to be the right direction. However, I am saddened that in the Prop 8 case, I feel SCOTUS dodged the issue and ruled on a technicality. Also, I feel very uncomfortable that 4 Supreme Court Justices, could in their supposed impartiality and Constitutional knowledge, vote against equal rights in marriage. While this is a step forward, I feel like SCOTUS showed itself to be political and not impartial at all.

Love is Love

The issue before the court in order to try the case was ..... was anyone harmed they ruled No.

The people who brought the case had not been harmed over the ruling but just supporters and had no standing.

Would you be happier if they had ruled the government had standing because Gay marriage is harmful to the people ?

How could they have ruled that the government has been harmed because gay marriage is harmful to the people,........ and then ruled banning it is wrong ?

The problem was the wrong people brought the case and they had no alternative not that they ruled incorrectly on a technicality.

Had they done it your way it would have opened the door for the people who say Gay marriage is harmful to society ....... instead they slammed that door in their face.

Had they actually heard the case their is one thing not in dispute .... the people who brought the case had not been harmed ..... that only leaves the "people" who now have been harmed .... let's say they even ruled in favor of making it unconstitutional or wrong (banning gay marriage) ..... all that would have done is indicate that THIS time the people had not been harmed enough to win the case but next time with more or different evidence they might ..... because by ruling the government had standing they would have set a precedent that ..... Gay marriage CAN be harmful They ruled that the idea that Gay marriage has any possibility at all of being harmful is so absurd the arguments are not worth listening to and don't ask us such an absurd question again and ruled Gay marriage can NOT be harmful.

I hope my explanation makes you not just less sad but happy !

Edited June 28, 2013 by MrRealDeal

[KED]

I agree that this is a big win for equal rights and am happy that the decisions went in what I believe to be the right direction. However, I am saddened that in the Prop 8 case, I feel SCOTUS dodged the issue and ruled on a technicality. Also, I feel very uncomfortable that 4 Supreme Court Justices, could in their supposed impartiality and Constitutional knowledge, vote against equal rights in marriage. While this is a step forward, I feel like SCOTUS showed itself to be political and not impartial at all.

Love is Love

The issue before the court in order to try the case was ..... was anyone harmed they ruled No.

The people who brought the case had not been harmed over the ruling but just supporters and had no standing.

Would you be happier if they had ruled the government had standing because Gay marriage is harmful to the people ?

How could they have ruled that the government has been harmed because gay marriage is harmful to the people,........ and then ruled banning it is wrong ?

The problem was the wrong people brought the case and they had no alternative not that they ruled incorrectly on a technicality.

Had they done it your way it would have opened the door for the people who say Gay marriage is harmful to society ....... instead they slammed that door in their face.

What about the DOMA case?

[MrRealDeal]

I'm not sure what you are asking ? Can you be more specific or you just want me to explain it ?

[Jingthing]

OK, there is a good precedent on the immigration front.

A binational gay couple, legally gay married in New York but RESIDING in Florida is being assured the foreign partner is on a path to citizenship based on his marriage (just like a straight couple). The foreigner has been legally living in the US for years on a student visa so he isn't exactly FOB. The interesting precedent is that they are going by state of celebration, not residence. According to Florida, they ain't married.

[sustento]

Just got his green card

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/gay-couple-are-first-to-get-american-green-card-after-court-ruling-allowing-gay-marriage-8682312.html