Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

spooky3

(34,303 posts)
32. are you sure about this? I thought that the ruling meant that
Thu Jun 27, 2013, 02:28 PM
Jun 2013

if people are legally married but move to NC, for example, they are entitled to federal benefits given to spouses, such as Social Security based on spouses' earnings, federal income tax filing status/rates, federal estate tax exemptions, etc. If so, then the feds. DO recognize the marriage for the purposes of applying federal laws. The problem is that state laws may continue to discriminate against them, e.g., state income tax laws, because those (and some other provisions of DOMA) were not directly challenged in the recent lawsuit.

The basis for this interpretation is that as I understand it, the USSC ruled that the challenged provision was inconsistent with the Equal Protection amendment to the Constitution.

This also implies (according to various writers) that if people in states like NC choose to challenge their states' behavior or other aspects of DOMA, they now have a greater likelihood of success, because there is now a precedent on the part of the USSC of viewing the Equal Protection amendment as providing some protection against unfair discrimination.

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
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I'll say it again: DOMA ...»Reply #32