Per the Constitution, no. That’s the whole point of “separating” federal rights from states’ rights.
With regards to my previous post, I was being sarcastically serious (I think all the other posters deciphered my tone). If you think about how we have evolved as a society, there’s nothing wrong with the idea of true free will. I should be able to do whatever the heck I want to (within limits, of course). However, all the White men, over the past two centuries or so, have bastardized incentives.
Take as an example a single, responsible individual. The person is taxed to death for doing all the right things like saving, paying his/her bills on time, not reproducing like rabbits, etc. On the other hand, you have incentives for immature people getting married at 20 and buying homes they can’t afford. To take it a step further, you even have incentives (tax writeoffs) for these people in place to facilitate child bearing although the child’s life may turn out to be mediocre. This is very much in line with where the Congress is today – you get to keep fecking up without getting fired.
TLDR. In summary, this should not have been a topic of discussion to begin with. Gen Y’ers like myself can’t fathom how the baby boomers in Congress function. However, it’s hard to say if I’d behave any differently if I were part of that generation. The sooner these suckers go away (on both sides of the aisle), the sooner the US will resume its path to prosperity.
As to what the court said, I think the decision in the Prop 8 case was wrong wrong wrong. Imagine if the case were reversed and that Prop 8.1 supported gay marriage and passed, but the state refused to implement it or defend it. Would that not be a miscarriage of justice?
Yeah, I was thinking about that too. Polygamy is more complex from a survivorship and benefits kind of thing, and how do things get divided when you have polygamous divorce?
It is true that a civil union that grants benefits equivalency to marriage seems fine to me, but people do fight over symbolic things, like having straight people tell gay people “you’re not really married, even if you have the same legal and survivorship benefits.” To me, I come down on the “why antagonize people about whether their union is technically marriage or not” side.
For me, I’m much more concerned about the gutting of Miranda yesterday than the DOMA act. I’m happy for my gay and lesbian friends, but overshadowed by the fact that remaining silent in a police questioning is now allowable as evidence for guilt unless you invoke your rights using highly specific legal language that most people are unlikely to know at the time. I feel that is a far more slippery slope to a dark place than allowing same-sex marriage.
Nope, it’s about societal acceptance and social validation of a particular lifestyle and community in addition to an intentional deconstruction of a “heteronormative” and therefore opressive institution of “marriage”.
I dont’ think those parades of screaming (and mostly young, and in many cases straight) people care about taxes and economic benefits…the language of gay marriage has always been framed in the context of “human rights” and “civil rights”.
I’m strongly in favor of legalizing polygamous marriage. I’m being completely serious. But only in a one way sense. My wives can’t have multiple husbands, that should be illegal.
They didn’t rule on whether gay marriage should be legal, they ruled on whether the Federal government will recognize gay marriage that takes place in the states. I’m amazed that the conservative judges are that transparent in their partisanship to dissent. I mean with DOMA the Fed is basically saying that state law doesn’t matter which should make state’s rights constitutionalist collective heads explode.
As far as states’ rights go, I think the Supreme Court handed down two separate decisions.
DOMA struck down because Federal govt has to respect the states’ definition of marriage = marriage is a state issue.
Prop 8 case vacated and remanded back to lower courts = states don’t have to defend their own laws.
I find the first one weird, same as Greenie - what next, discrimination is a state issue as well? Can the Southern POS states go back to segregation?
Second one is a little more defensible, similar to how prosecutors have discretion in which cases to pursue. They can very well ignore a murder and pursue a purse-snatching if they want to (but not if they want to keep their job and not be voted out.)
“This is what I say to the most conservative person that’s so terrified of gay marriage becoming legal. Just because the state says it’s legal, it’s not like God’s going to let them into Heaven. So you can still sleep sound every night knowing that goal line defense is up at the pearly gates.”
…was listening to comedy central on sirius and thought this bit by Daniel Tosh was funny.
In the DOMA case, the majority in the Supreme Court said that the federal definition of marriage as between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause. As a result, if you’re married under state law, you’re considered married under Federal law. The conservatives on the court merely argued that the federal definition of marriage as between a man and a woman was okay. If the DOMA law had originally said the state definition of marriage is what should be used in Federal law, the conservative justices would have never had a problem with it. So it’s not like they’re being inconsistent and their heads should explode.
TLDR version - Yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling striking down DOMA means that gay couples will have increased tax benefits. Now a gay couple can use the estate tax exclusion (previously unavailable to them), and possibly the gift tax exclusion. They can also file MFJ, which results in lower tax rates and more deductions. And if a gay couple gets married in MA, then moves to UT, then they can still file MFJ for federal tax purposes, but will still have to file separate returns for UT.