General Discussion

ProSense

(116,464 posts)

14. I get that

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 11:58 AM

Jun 2013

Part of DOMA has been struck down not the whole thing. Part 3 was struck down meaning that the federal government will now recognize same sex marriages that were performed in a state where they were recognized and whose couples are still living in a state in which they are recognized. But part 2, which permits states to not recognize the same sex marriages performed in other states lives on. Thus the numerous friends of mine who got married legally in other places are being treated no differently today than they were yesterday. To gain benefit from this decision they have to move to a state that legally recognizes their marriage.

...point, but considering that this was a federal law, it was essentially struck down. The ruling also makes it easier to challenge the other aspect of the law, which is the ACLU's point.

Today's ruling was the tipping point in the struggle for full equality for LGBT Americans. It is not by any means the end of discrimination against LGBT folks, but it is the end of legally sanctioned, federal discrimination against same-sex couples.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/lgbt-rights/big-win-today-now-full-equality-sight

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

35 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I'll say it again: DOMA HAS NOT BEEN STRUCK DOWN [View all] markpkessinger Jun 2013 OP

it's a big step in the right, er, left direction Skittles Jun 2013 #1

That door has been kicked wide open. HappyMe Jun 2013 #2

Thanks Debbie Downer! Texasgal Jun 2013 #3

Sorry if reality is a 'downer' to you . , , markpkessinger Jun 2013 #4

Mark can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm quite sure he has identified bullwinkle428 Jun 2013 #5

He is right you know. You have only to look at the outcome re: VRA to MichiganVote Jun 2013 #6

Is it your point that we shouldnt discuss this? Is what he is saying not the truth? rhett o rick Jun 2013 #26

"The Supreme Court did what I once thought was unthinkable in striking down DOMA." ProSense Jun 2013 #7

The ACLU was, unusually for them, sloppy in its writing here dsc Jun 2013 #10

I'm just tuning in -- didn't Pab or someone yesterday say something about Robb Jun 2013 #12

the whole severability clause thing is a red herring dsc Jun 2013 #15

Got it, thank you. nt Robb Jun 2013 #31

I get that ProSense Jun 2013 #14

even that last paragraph is a bit sloppy dsc Jun 2013 #16

Huh? n/t ProSense Jun 2013 #19

Let me spell it out for you dsc Jun 2013 #23

I'm not sure ProSense Jun 2013 #28

The import of DSC's point . . . markpkessinger Jun 2013 #35

are you sure about this? I thought that the ruling meant that spooky3 Jun 2013 #32

This is really a critical point . . . markpkessinger Jun 2013 #34

Thats the point many don't seem to grasp. William769 Jun 2013 #18

We are still years away from any such ruling dsc Jun 2013 #24

IMO, the Prop 8 decision showed the Cons feared making a broad ruling bigbrother05 Jun 2013 #29

Last night on rightwing news here in rightwing I-Dee-Ho, they were reassuring the rednecks . . . Major Hogwash Jun 2013 #8

Valid point, though it will make striking the rest of DOMA down much easier. backscatter712 Jun 2013 #9

Forgive my ignorance, but why did they only focus on that part instead of the whole law? ecstatic Jun 2013 #11

Because that was the part that was challenged. TalkingDog Jun 2013 #20

Thanks.nt ecstatic Jun 2013 #25

it's been pretty well gutted. the major portion was the federal part cali Jun 2013 #13

tell that to those of us who live in the 37 states which don't recognize same sex marriages dsc Jun 2013 #17

And to those of us living in states that do not recognize Civil Unions at all because: teh geyz! TalkingDog Jun 2013 #21

NC as well dsc Jun 2013 #22

is it simply a question of someone with standing challenging the other sections? mike_c Jun 2013 #27

One would certainly hope . . . markpkessinger Jun 2013 #30

K&R! :( Fire Walk With Me Jun 2013 #33