President Obama: Marriage benefits should cross state lines

[cal04]

President Barack Obama says the Supreme Court's rulings on gay marriage were a victory not just for gays and lesbians, but for American democracy.

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.

Obama spoke in Dakar, Senegal, at a joint news conference with Senegal's President Macky Sall. Obama said different customs and religious beliefs must be respected in different countries, but states and laws should treat everyone equally.

http://www.cbs8.com/story/22700894/obama-marriage-benefits-should-cross-state-lines%20%20target=


President Obama: 'It's my personal belief -- and I'm speaking now as a president not as a lawyer -- if you're married in Massachusetts and you move someplace else, you're still married'
http://www.breakingnews.com/


Obama Praises Supreme Court's Rulings On Gay Marriage, Says Benefits Should Cross State Lines
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/27/obama-same-sex-marriage_n_3508918.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003

[Sherman A1]

1. Precisely

[Skidmore]

2. Yes. He's correct.

[MADem]

3. The President is correct.

President Obama: 'It's my personal belief -- and I'm speaking now as a president not as a lawyer -- if you're married in Massachusetts and you move someplace else, you're still married'


If the hatin' states are going to try to play that game, they're going to have some problems. States are supposed to "reciprocate," so if (insert name of homophobic state) decides to get shitty about a couple married in Massachusetts, it's within the right of Massachusetts to refuse to recognize a marriage from (homophobic state).

Personally, I think that interpretation will be the thing that will accelerate this issue so that equality is the law of the land in every state in the union, not just recognized at the federal level and a number of enlightened enclaves.

You'd think the overblown wedding industry, with the fancy venues with lights and expensive wedding costumes and tents and flowers and "themes," would start lobbying state legislators. Massachusetts is eating their lunches, and those states are losing out on the state taxes generated by weddings with the meals and the music and the booze flowing....it's just so petty and short sighted.

[MineralMan]

4. Of course they should. Federal benefits

are not, and should never be, limited by any state. I'm surprised that there is even any question about this. In fact, I think the current court rulings may mean that full faith and credit must be applied by all states, and render anti-marriage equality amendments to state constitutions unconstitutional. That will certainly be the assertion by many federal lawsuits about to be filed. I believe those amendments to state constitutions will be declared unconsitutional soon, on 14th amendment grounds.

[Pab Sungenis]

5. It will probably take another ruling to clarify this

but the Windsor decision said just that. Even though the Court mentions that Section 2 of DOMA wasn't in dispute in the case, Kennedy laid out a case for strong scrutiny in the decision, and specifically wrote that "the statute" was invalid, not just section 3 of it. And since there was no severability clause in the act, the whole act is null and void.

I don't think the States will be forced to perform the marriages on their own, but the 14th Amendment will compel them to recognize marriages performed in other states. Look for the lawsuits next summer when states start rejecting tax returns filed as "married" by couples who got hitched elsewhere.

[MineralMan]

6. That's my take on it, too. You're right that it's going to

take additional court actions to make that obvious. Full faith and credit is a powerful argument, especially when it comes to marriage. There are current examples where states are required to honor marriage from states with different marriage laws. I'm thinking specifically of first cousin marriages, which are allowed only in less than half of states. Despite that, all states must recognize such marriages.

The same thing should apply to same-sex marriages, and it will be almost impossible for states to argue otherwise. I hope there are cases under preparation to bring this argument before the federal courts. I'm certain there are, since it's such an obvious constitutional issue.

[Iliyah]

7. Since the GOPer states are presently

having their field day with voting rights and map RED redistricting which they hope will keep the GOP in power with these states and also keeping bans on GAY anything, and forthwith is effing with women parts, unions and worker rights and medical coverages, yeah the same states that welfare off of the rest of America, them folks, so for awhile its gonna be a rough ride.

[dbackjon]

8. Good continued evolution

So are you taking back your statement that marriage is a state's rights issue?


I also see that you don't care enough about gays to worry about gays being put to death in Senegal. You are meeting with a genocidal terrorist - WHY?

[obama2terms]

9. He's right

DOMA was ( I love saying was) a federal law, so now that it's over hopefully that is what will happen.