SCOTUS takes on Prop 8 & DOMA!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/08/us...rriage.html?hp

Blog with very interesting commentary.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/11/sa...ourts-options/


"The case concerns two New York City women, Edith Windsor and Thea Clara Spyer, who were married in 2007 in Canada. Ms. Spyer died in 2009, and Ms. Windsor inherited her property. The 1996 law did not allow the Internal Revenue Service to treat Ms. Windsor as a surviving spouse, and she faced a tax bill of some $360,000 that a spouse in an opposite-sex marriage would not have had to pay.


Ms. Windsor sued, and in October the federal appeals court in New York struck down the 1996 law. The decision was the second from a federal appeals court to do so, joining one in May from a court in Boston. The New York decision was the first from a federal appeals court to say that laws treating same-sex couples differently must be subjected to heightened judicial scrutiny.


The Windsor case made its way the Supreme Court unusually quickly because the parties had filed an appeal from the trial court’s decision in the case, also striking down the law, even before the appeals court had ruled."

I just hope this finishes off the issue once and for all. This is such a non-issue now for most of the public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bunnys

I just hope this finishes off the issue once and for all. This is such a non-issue now for most of the public.

---

Indeed! May it not become our generations Plessy. We shall see.

Nice graphic:

http://graphics.latimes.com/usmap-ga...ge-chronology/

Being a gay man myself, I gotta say it is high time these cases were taking up by the Supreme Court. Given also that public opinion has shifted on this issue, (there was an interesting article on the front page of yesterday's USA Today about this), if DOMA is not struck down, I wonder how can anyone take seriously the US Constitution? Remember that bit about all men being created equal? We shall see what happens, for obvious reasons I wait with interest in the decision. I expect nothing - but then also have hope as I was 100% certain ObamaCare would be struck down. So we shall see - maybe on this one we will get closer to all men (and women, too) being created equal - I remember no clauses in the US Constitution about sexual orientation nullifying this. Rob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife

Being a gay man myself, I gotta say it is high time these cases were taking up by the Supreme Court. Given also that public opinion has shifted on this issue, (there was an interesting article on the front page of yesterday's USA Today about this), if DOMA is not struck down, I wonder how can anyone take seriously the US Constitution? Remember that bit about all men being created equal? We shall see what happens, for obvious reasons I wait with interest in the decision. I expect nothing - but then also have hope as I was 100% certain ObamaCare would be struck down. So we shall see - maybe on this one we will get closer to all men (and women, too) being created equal - I remember no clauses in the US Constitution about sexual orientation nullifying this. Rob

---

While I have no issues with same sex marriage, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg, I think anyone conflating it with constitutional equality is missing the boat. As an individual, all persons are equal under the constitution.

The issues of same sex marriage are those of acceptance and benefit, neither of which are constitutionally guaranteed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife

...if DOMA is not struck down, I wonder how can anyone take seriously the US Constitution? Remember that bit about all men being created equal?

---

Yes, I remember that bit. It's in the Declaration of Independence though. Another one of those bothersome musty old documents nobody cares for anymore....

Note also that further along in the Declaration, it says (bold is my emphasis...):

Quote:

---

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

---

I think there is a boringly simple constitutional argument that follows from reading the 9th and 10th Amendments (almost forgotten text these days too..). Where in the Constitution is the Federal government ceded the power to regulate marriage in any way?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

While I have no issues with same sex marriage, I think anyone conflating it with constitutional equality is missing the boat. As an individual, all persons are equal under the law.

The issues of same sex marriage are those of acceptance and benefit, neither of which are constitutionally guaranteed.

---

I disagree, Alan. Completely.

Let me put it this way.....If you believe in the Constitution (?) that states all men are created equal, then should it not be legal for me to marry another man - and have it be the same as you yourself marrying a woman? Both should have the same set of rights and responsibilities - and the unfortunatey messy potential for divorce. To me this is all men being created equal. I can't tell you for how many years I have felt disconnected from society - as I said, just going through the motions - here is another reason - the reality for some is that not all men are created equal. Walk a mile in these shoes.....you might very well see this differently. Rob

Well my bad.....LOL and I have a college degree too.....I am sure you are right and this is stated in the declaration of independence.....point being if this clause is true and real, maybe it's time to be true and real for another class of people? Rob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife

I disagree, Alan. Completely.

---

You're conflating state entitlements or benefits (recognized by the federal government) for rights. You and I share the same constitutional rights as well as the same rights to marry. The issue is not the recognition of our individual abilities, but our individual desires.

Within my lifetime, it was illegal for men and women of different races to marry. The red states on this map until 1967, yellow '48->'67.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nation.svg.png

I see this issue as being little different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

You're conflating state entitlements or benefits (recognized by the federal government) for rights. You and I share the same constitutional rights as well as the same rights to marry. The issue is not our individual abilities, but our individual desires.

---

That's a poor bit of sophistry, Alan, and you know it. Shame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

You're conflating state entitlements or benefits (recognized by the federal government) for rights. You and I share the same constitutional rights as well as the same rights to marry. The issue is not the recognition of our individual abilities, but our individual desires.

---

Alan, I am absolutely intrigued. We share the same rights to marry, you say?

OK then. Let us say we are both single, and you want to marry Lucy (a random name I picked out). I want to marry Sven (I've always liked that name). So we all live in Phoenix - or let's make it Cleveland, as you are from Ohio. The four of us - you and I and Lucy and Sven - go down to City Hall and try to get marriage licenses. You and Lucy have no problem - Sven and I don't get the license. How do we share the same rights to marry, Alan? Once again, you have me absolutely intrigued.....Rob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae

Within my lifetime, it was illegal for men and women of different races to marry. The red states on this map until 1967, yellow '48->'67.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nation.svg.png

I see this issue as being little different.

---

I see it as being quite similar, in the sense that what seems to be a basic human right to the people involved is denied through the law. Rob (and yet taxes are still collected and due anyway, which has issues of taxation without representation to me but that's a whole other can of worms.)

Just wanted to add - I didn't know what sophistry meant &googled it- thanks for using this word so I could learn a new word.....Rob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae

That's a poor bit of sophistry, Alan, and you know it. Shame.

---

I disagree. Be you gay or straight, we all are bound by the same rules of engagement.

The problem is that governments, local and national, have gotten involved in something that was not their concern. We allowed it to proffer benefits and entitlements to heterosexual couples only then complain about certain exclusions. What we should be complaining about is the intrusion of government into the most basic human condition.

Or, Rob, both you and Alan decide to get married (to Sven and Lucy) here in Washington State, at my vineyard. You all fly in, get your licenses, show up, and I marry you. Life is good. Both couples are married here, legally, in the state of Washington.

Until you file your Federal income taxes, and find out that the Federal government has decided to ignore the sovereign people of the State of Washington's wishes. Or until you, Rob, die, and try to leave your estate to your husband. And find that the Federal government doesn't want the estate transfer between spouses to occur as specified by the laws of the Great State of Washington, and taxes it so your partner has to move.

Or until you move to some state that doesn't honor gay marriage, and decide to press your rights, and find out that the Federal government will not line up on your side to enforce Article IV Section 1 of the US Constitution, which requires simply that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

What we should be complaining about is the intrusion of government into the most basic human condition.

---

I agree with you on this point, that government should not be involved in marriage at all, except as a recorder and arbiter of contracts.

We don't live in that world though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

I disagree. Be you gay or straight, we all are bound by the same rules of engagement.

The problem is that governments, local and national, have gotten involved in something that was not their concern. We allowed it to proffer benefits and entitlements to heterosexual couples only then complain about certain exclusions. What we should be complaining about is the intrusion of government into the most basic human condition.

---

I'm making an honest faith effort to follow you Alan, I really am. So let's say the government does not intrude as you say into the institution of marriage - what makes your marriage to Lucy legal? Were it not for this intrusion, how would you have the right to inherit Lucy's property upon her death? (or be responsible for her debts.) What would make my marriage to Sven any bit legal at all were it not for government intrusion as you put it? Rob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife

Alan, I am absolutely intrigued. We share the same rights to marry, you say?

---

Sort of, we both share the ability to have a marriage to a member of the opposite sex recognized, and we both share the ability to not marry. Those are not rights but rather benefits afforded us under the law. We are equal in that regard.

The problem comes into play when the narrow definitions of marriage, as defined by governments, are the basis of recognition and entitlement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae

Or, Rob, both you and Alan decide to get married (to Sven and Lucy) here in Washington State, at my vineyard. You all fly in, get your licenses, show up, and I marry you. Life is good. Both couples are married here, legally, in the state of Washington.

Until you file your Federal income taxes, and find out that the Federal government has decided to ignore the sovereign people of the State of Washington's wishes. Or until you, Rob, die, and try to leave your estate to your husband. And find that the Federal government doesn't want the estate transfer between spouses to occur as specified by the laws of the Great State of Washington, and taxes it so your partner has to move.

Or until you move to some state that doesn't honor gay marriage, and decide to press your rights, and find out that the Federal government will not line up on your side to enforce Article IV Section 1 of the US Constitution, which requires simply that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."

---

These points of yours I completely agree with and understand.....If I ever meet a Sven, may it be on Capitol Hill with him having no wishes to leave Washington State! LOL. Rob

Rob - Alan is referring to the highly-preferable-to-me situation in which "marriage" would simply be a collection of contractual rights/responsibilities between consenting parties.

The government would only get involved in the event of a dispute, and anarcho-libertarians even postulate systems in which a government need not be involved in such things either.

Again though, I think it is unreasonable to expect real people in the real world to wait for this paradise, and to hold off on recognizing their situation until we reach that anarcho-syndicalist holy land.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

Sort of, we both share the ability to have a marriage to a member of the opposite sex recognized, and we both share the ability to not marry. Those are not rights but rather benefits afforded us under the law. We are equal in that regard.

---

"We both have the right to marry a member of our same race, and we both share the ability not to marry".

"We both have the right to marry a member of our same religion, and we both share the ability not to marry".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

Sort of, we both share the ability to have a marriage to a member of the opposite sex recognized, and we both share the ability to not marry. Those are not rights but rather benefits afforded us under the law. We are equal in that regard.

The problem comes into play when the narrow definitions of marriage, as defined by governments, are the basis of recognition and entitlement.

---

OK I think I am following you here. But what throws me off is that you say we are equal in the regard to marry a member of the opposite sex, but the problem in my case becomes the narrow definition of marriage as defined by goverments.

Is legally recognizing same sex marriage expanding to some degree the narrow definition of marriage as you say? Rob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife

I'm making an honest faith effort to follow you Alan, I really am. So let's say the government does not intrude as you say into the institution of marriage - what makes your marriage to Lucy legal? Were it not for this intrusion, how would you have the right to inherit Lucy's property upon her death? (or be responsible for her debts.) What would make my marriage to Sven any bit legal at all were it not for government intrusion as you put it? Rob

---

I think we should be asking, why is the government involved in any of this? A marriage is simply a public declaration of unity, the joining of two individuals into one unit. Once that pairing has been accomplished, who is the government to decide how that unit's property should be dispersed outside of refereeing a division of property upon divorce?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae

Rob - Alan is referring to the highly-preferable-to-me situation in which "marriage" would simply be a collection of contractual rights/responsibilities between consenting parties.

The government would only get involved in the event of a dispute, and anarcho-libertarians even postulate systems in which a government need not be involved in such things either.

Again though, I think it is unreasonable to expect real people in the real world to wait for this paradise, and to hold off on recognizing their situation until we reach that anarcho-syndicalist holy land.

---

So would this be the libertarian take on marriage, a collection of contractional rights/responsibilities between consenting parties? Isn't this what marriage is in the first place? Basically? Rob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

I think we should be asking, why is the government involved in any of this? A marriage is simply a public declaration of unity, the joining of two individuals into one unit. Once that pairing has been accomplished, who is the government to decide how that unit's property should be dispersed outside of refereeing a division of property upon divorce?

---

I lived with my wife for 15 years before we got formally married. We had "declared unity" to all of our friends and family. We owned a home together. We had powers of attorney for all sorts of things (thank goodness she is a lawyer).

It was still an unbelievable pain. I was admitted to a hospital once after a car crash, they wouldn't let my sweetie in to see me, or to direct my care. Even though she a) was my attorney! b) had wads of paperwork. They wanted to sort it out after the fact.

In today's system, couples need protection. Protection that even the best-crafted piles of powers-of-attorney, contracts, and domestic partnership arrangements don't afford in real time.

And even today, we get friction still because our last names are different....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

I think we should be asking, why is the government involved in any of this? A marriage is simply a public declaration of unity, the joining of two individuals into one unit. Once that pairing has been accomplished, who is the government to decide how that unit's property should be dispersed outside of refereeing a division of property upon divorce?

---

Ummm how about reasons of child support in the event of divorce? How about battles regarding assets upon death? How about in the case of marriage of citizens of different countries, so the two persons can live together in one country? I can think of situations in which a legal framework would make situations less messy. Rob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae

I lived with my wife for 15 years before we got formally married. We had "declared unity" to all of our friends and family. We owned a home together. We had powers of attorney for all sorts of things (thank goodness she is a lawyer).

It was still an unbelievable pain. I was admitted to a hospital once after a car crash, they wouldn't let my sweetie in to see me, or to direct my care. Even though she a) was my attorney! b) had wads of paperwork. They wanted to sort it out after the fact.

In today's system, couples need protection. Protection that even the best-crafted piles of powers-of-attorney, contracts, and domestic partnership arrangements don't afford in real time.

And even today, we get friction still because our last names are different....

---

So being legally married solved some of these woes, correct? I think that two committed same sex partners should have the right to minimize these issues, too. Currently the best way to accomplish this seems to be legal marriage, no? (as the case of you and your wife illustrates) Rob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife

So being legally married solved some of these woes, correct?

---

Correct. We surrendered when we had our child.

Quote:

---

I think that two committed same sex partners should have the right to minimize these issues, too. Currently the best way to accomplish this seems to be legal marriage, no? (as the case of you and your wife illustrates) Rob

---

Indeed so. My father and his partner of 30+ years have not the same option :-(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife

Is legally recognizing same sex marriage expanding to some degree the narrow definition of marriage as you say? Rob

---

Well of course it is. DOMA specifies marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Like many democratically inspired laws, it allows the tyranny of the majority to affect the minority.

I'll ask again, why do we allow the government to define our lives? As a conservative, I'm against our government treating anyone differently, be they rich, poor, straight, gay, black, white, brown, etc. (Actually what I really don't understand is why so many liberals are in favor of identity politics as this is exactly what it always leads to.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

I'll ask again, why do we allow the government to define our lives?

---

Because not enough of us have hit the "watering the tree of Liberty" stage yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

Well of course it is. DOMA specifies marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Like many democratically inspired laws, it allows the tyranny of the majority to affect the minority.

I'll ask again, why do we allow the government to define our lives? As a conservative, I'm against our government treating anyone differently, be they rich, poor, straight, gay, black, white, brown, etc. (Actually what I really don't understand is why so many liberals are in favor of identity politics as this is exactly what it always leads to.)

---

I follow your beginning here but then get lost on the second paragraph. Why do we allow the government to define our lives? Fair question in my book. Because given the current system we live under, in this case discussing same sex marriage, this is the only way for the mythical Sven and I to have the same rights and responsibilities as the mythical Lucy and you have. I can see some points in what you are saying about why is the government part of this - why is the government intruding in this when two consenting adults can figure this one out on their own - why? Because until there is some kind of major societal change, this is the only way it seems that Sven and I can have what you and Lucy can easily have - those rights and responsibilities. You bring up interesting points, Alan, (and I can see you are great to debate with), but.....in society as it is right now, to have what you an Lucy can easily have, the only way seems to be getting the government into it and state by state trying to make same sex marriage legal. Fair answer? Rob PS If society were to change and another method could achieve similar results, I'd be open to it. Rob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae

Correct. We surrendered when we had our child.



Indeed so. My father and his partner of 30+ years have not the same option :-(

---

Congrats to your father and his partner BTW.....Rob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

I think we should be asking, why is the government involved in any of this? A marriage is simply a public declaration of unity, the joining of two individuals into one unit. Once that pairing has been accomplished, who is the government to decide how that unit's property should be dispersed outside of refereeing a division of property upon divorce?

---

By all means, ask. In the meantime, let's move forward with marriage equality, or rescind federal recognition of all marriages, and all the financial entanglements that have emerged as a result of this recognition. BTW, historically, marriage was a property rights contract. This property included the woman & her inheritance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

Well of course it is. DOMA specifies marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Like many democratically inspired laws, it allows the tyranny of the majority to affect the minority.

I'll ask again, why do we allow the government to define our lives? As a conservative, I'm against our government treating anyone differently, be they rich, poor, straight, gay, black, white, brown, etc. (Actually what I really don't understand is why so many liberals are in favor of identity politics as this is exactly what it always leads to.)

---

Unless we remove all the legal, economic ramifications of marriage, the state has to be in there somewhere. Personally I'd like to see the whole thing tossed for a much more generic legal definition, like allowing people to form a household (like forming a corporation, a legal document defining rights and obligations) in its place. And leave marriage as a strictly religious institution.

Well, I've read that the Obama administration is planning to NOT defend DOMA before the Supremes, in hopes they kill it forever, paving the way for the feds to legally recognize the states that allow same sex marriage. Obama is just one person, and not king, as it turns out, and must protect and defend the laws no matter how onerous they may be to him. He wants this law, DOMA, to go away as much as most of the rest of us.
However, the republicans are gearing up for a fight in their march to solidify THEIR vision of marriage by writing INTO the constitution this discrimination.
Sorry Alan, you're not going to twist this to somehow blame the democrats for this discrimination while supporting and defending the very ones who so very very much want to keep it and write it into the constitution!

What many don't realize is Clinton signed the DOMA in an effort to PROTECT gays, or rather to protect an individual states right to allow same sex marriage. Hawaii was having a serious talk with itself about same sex marriage and the republicans were afraid their states would have to recognize same sex couples from Hawaii if they passed a law allowing it. With a growing anti-gay force in the republican congress who were pushing to amend the constitution to add this official discrimination, Clinton felt this act was the only way to pacify these right-wing haters and signed it so they would back off and allow each state to determine for themselves within their state. Clinton actually changed his mind about this law quite a while ago, and would like to see it go away as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggy

However, the republicans are gearing up for a fight in their march to solidify THEIR vision of marriage by writing INTO the constitution this discrimination.

---

I think polluting our Constitution with such a thing would push quite a few folks I know into the "watering the tree of Liberty" zone. I suspect it'd make the Stonewall Riots look like a meeting of the garden club...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae

I think polluting our Constitution with such a thing would push quite a few folks I know into the "watering the tree of Liberty" zone. I suspect it'd make the Stonewall Riots look like a meeting of the garden club...

---

Absolutely! Never in our history, since it's beginning, have we tried to write discrimination INTO the constitution. Frankly I think they will lose. I don't think they can come up with any reasonable argument that convinces anyone why your father and step father, or my daughter and any future SO, shouldn't marry. I think in the cold light of the Supreme court, emotional rhetoric will not trump simple law/rights laid out clearly in the constitution.

At 12:01 am, 3 minutes from now, Judy Mary Yu will conduct the first legal marriage of two women in Seattle. Yay!

... and a bit of humor!

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/a...t?oid=15449639