Supreme Court Ruling on Gay Marriage
 

I'm hoping that this ruling comes in today and the Supreme Court actually does something big. I'm very excited to hear what the ruling is!

No ruling today. :(

I am hoping it comes out soon too.

supposed to be tomorrow

Supreme Court strikes down DOMA, Proposition 8


Am I the only one who finds it ironic that #DOMA was signed by Bill Clinton, but yet Anthony Kennedy who was appointed by Ronald Reagan, wrote the majority opinion in favor of shooting it down? Good job Supreme Court. You got this one right. #ProudConservativeforEqualRights

I'm just sitting on the couch by myself grinning stupidly while my dog looks at me like I'm nuts.

This is a historic day and an amazing day. Thank you Justice Kennedy for doing the right thing :D :D

This times 1000000.

I am SO happy DOMA was declared unconstitutional! This is a great day for America.

The Supreme Court got this one right. Absolutely. I started to cry when I heard it because of what it means for so many Americans and some friends of mine here in California. Justice Anthony Kennedy is my hero right now. :):D

About damn time.

This is a great step in the LGBT justice movement. I'm excited to move forward.

Now I have to roll my eyes at this. Members of my hubby's very conservative & uptight (sticks up their asses) family are now posting pics of their own weddings & kids saying things like it's a sad day for family values, marriage and kids. I'm deleting all their ignorant asses. :rolleyes:

I wish they had gone a step further and ruled CA's Prop 8 Unconstitutional so the laws in the other 35 states had to fall also. Baby steps I guess.

To be clear, they didn't strike down Prop 8. They dismissed the appeal of the district court's decision striking it down.

What I find really interesting is the alignment on the Prop 8 decision.

I understand the sentiment, but that could have been disastrous. It doesn't work well when the Court tries to set policy for the country. Witness Roe v. Wade -- even if one likes the outcome (and there are lots of legal scholars who like the outcome but think the decision is legally wrong), there's no question that the decision polarized the abortion issue in a way that might have been avoided or lessened had it been left to the states to work things out legislatively.

There will be more lawsuits and more chances to deal with the question, but for now, the Court took the most prudent course.

Plus, it's going to take another case to get marriages recognized across different states. I'm hoping that the LGBT community and our allies haven't forgotten that we still have plenty of work to do.

MC, how do you interpret the tea leaves in all of the dicta about how marriage is this fundamental province of the states, but of course subject to certain restrictions? (the Court cited Loving v. Virginia several times).

It looks promising...

So MC or one of the other legal eagles, what does the prop 8 case lacking standing mean? Does the circuit court's ruling stand, or does it mean that the federal government was never involved and the California Supreme Court is the deciding party?

What happened was the Prop 8 case was won at the District Court level and Prop 8 was overturned. The governor and AG declined to appeal. The courts allowed a special interest group to appeal. It was held that the special interest group had no standing to appeal because they hadn't been directly injured in any way. The practical effect is that gay marriage in California is now a thing.

Can someone explain to me exactly what DOMA being declared unconstitutional means, then?

I thought that it meant that all states had to recognize same-sex marriages and grant same-sex couples equal rights, even if they didn't perform the marriages in the state.

Only one part of DOMA was declared unconstitutional, that's the part where the federal government was not allowed to recognize same sex unions even if the states recognized those unions. The opinion tosses the "am I married?" issue squarely in the laps of the states.

Surviving is a part which says that states don't have to honor marriages contracted in other states, so whether a statute like that can survive the equal protection/privileges and immunities clauses is a fight for another day.

So now if a state recognizes a same-sex union, the federal government has to do so?

Thanks for the information.

Wouldn't the Full Faith and Credit Clause also be an issue?

Yes.

And it was on the tip of my tongue.. or fingers as it were.

Correct. So the 11 or 12 states which have same-sex marriage will now enjoy having their same-sex couples not treated as second-rate citizens by our federal government.

I'm particularly happy today for my DG sister in California, who married her wife years ago, saw their marriage struck down, married her again, adopted children, and has been waiting in hopes the bigots didn't succeed in interfering yet again.

Not done, Libby, but getting closer!

Unlike yesterday, when I really had time to study the VRA case, I barely had time to skim the decisions today. I'll weigh in when I've had a chance to really read them.

And ditto just about everything else you've said/explained.

MC, does this decision also mean that religious leaders of all faiths will be required to perform same sex marriages? Could they be prosecuted for discrimination if they refuse? or is that an issue coming later down the road?

Though you didn't address the question to me, I can state that when I went to get married, the first prelate we approached refused to perform the ceremony, even though we were both free to marry, as my fiance was divorced and of another faith.

Logic would then dictate that a faith leader can refuse to perform a ceremony based on the teachings of that faith.

Not remotely possible.

See the First Amendment Establishment and Free Exercise clauses.

:D

http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-productio...jpg?1372276935

thanks for the info everybody! I appreciate it.

An interesting read that also helped, thanks to Mary Poppins

A 30 Second Guide to How the Gay Marriage Ruling Affects You

This. Religious leaders/clergy aren't "required" to perform weddings now. They are authorized (or in some states, licensed) to perform weddings, and are fully able (as DGTess suggests) to refuse to perform a wedding if applicale religious requirements are not met.

What today's decision means is that if a state legally recognizes a marriage, the federal government cannot refuse to recognize it. So for example, if you're a legally-married same-sex couple in, say, New York, the IRS now has to let you file a joint tax return. But under the decisions today, it is still up to each state to decide whether to recognize same-sex marriages.

Interesting question.

I'm currently based in The Netherlands, the first country to allow same-sex marriage over 12 years ago. In the past years there has been a lot of debate on this issue, expanding it to include civil servants. Quite an interesting debate, though the population isn't as religious as the American people are, only about 40% are religious. The main religions are Protestantism and Catholicism.

The Protestant Church here left it up to individual congregations to decide of they wanted to bless same-sex marriages, and most now do. The Roman Catholic Church has not allowed blessings in their churches, but other Catholic movements do.

Legally, all civil servants are required to conduct same-sex marriages, though if they were hired before the law came in to place, they cannot be fired over refusal to do so. What it comes down to is that every municipality has at least one civil servant who conducts same-sex marriages.

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO. NO. This is NOT a thing. If I walk into a Catholic church and ask the priest to marry me, right now, he's going to say "No, you are Jewish", and I cannot turn around and bring legal action against him. Churches are allowed to discriminate all over the place.

(In fact, I applied for a job at an Evangelical Christian university, and they rejected me on the basis of my faith)

If a same-sex couple gets married in a state where their marriage is legal, then later moves to one that doesn't recognize same-sex marriages, will the federal government still recognize the marriage? In other words, does the federal government's recognition of the legality of the marriage depend on where they currently live or where they were legally married?

I think that it's based on state of residence. Because remember the couple in this case were married in Canada, not the US.

I know this has been answered already, but look at it this way - we have the right to own guns, however, if you tried walking into a nightclub with one, they can turn you around and not allow you inside.

I think what a lot of people don't know (and what I didn't really know until I took my first law class in college) is that the Constitution protects us against the government. It doesn't demand that churches, or businesses, or individuals grant us the same rights in the same way.

In the example I provided above, the government would not be permitted to force that nightclub to admit anyone with a gun, the same way it couldn't force a church to perform a same-sex marriage.

The federal government will recognize a legal marriage, whether or not the state does. Therefore, for example, a couple married in Massachusetts who now lives in Virginia will be able to file a married-filing-jointly federal tax return, but not a Virginia return.

Social security is a federal entitlement. Therefore, if the couple is legally married, whether or not the state of residence acknowledges it, SS will be available.

State benefits will not be. I don't have anywhere near a legal enough mind to comprehend yet how federal-state partnerships will work.

To address thetalady's question, I would think (and accept) that any church could participate or not. Currently some (but I think not all) Catholic churches will only perform marriages physically inside the church - no outdoor ceremonies, and I see that as a similar type of policy. I personally see it as freedom to associate, and I have no problem with there being a disconnect between public policy and church policy.

And regarding the federal versus states issue, the big assumption is this is exactly the next battle in this war. Couple from Iowa who has been married for several years moves to Utah. Can their new home really deny them rights (and a lot of the important ones like end of life issues would be state policy)? The most conservative states are going to be bombarded with law suits because of this. But that doesn't mean the churches in those states need to play along.

To me, the next interesting battle will be about plural marriage. And for the record, I have no problem with plural marriage as long as everyone is adult and it is truly consenting among all parties. The Shariah contract would be perfect for this. Can you imagine Utah enacting Shariah Law? In Shariah Law, as it was explained to me in Dubai, is the bride signs off in the contract (basically a REALLY detailed prenup) on whether or not she will allow additional wives, and how many. In modern Islam, the max number of wives is 4. But that's a discussion for another time.

You are correct. Roman Catholic weddings are often indoors, though some priests are willing to perform the ceremony outdoors. It is more of a priest by priest basis on that.

And that's the correlation I was trying to make. It's between you and your priest, as would gay marriage.
And by the way, that was my excuse for NOT getting married in the church. They have the in the church rule and I wanted an outdoor wedding. The real reason was I think annulments, except in the most unusual circumstances, are dumb, and that's what would have been required for my husband to be married in the church.