Justices may take up same-sex marriag...

Justices may take up same-sex marriage cases

There are 223 comments on the KJCT story from Sep 24, 2012, titled Justices may take up same-sex marriage cases. In it, KJCT reports that:

The divisive issue of same-sex marriage was expected to be discussed privately by the Supreme Court Monday, and the justices could soon announce if they will hear a constitutional challenge to a federal law denying financial benefits to gay and lesbian couples.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KJCT.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#205 Oct 3, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
Its simple, and very wrong.
It runs counter to the discussions in the DOMA cases and is ignorant of the way medicaid, bankruptcy, and social security work...
in all of these, the state of residence defines and the fed accepts those...
"Medicaid Eligibility
States have some discretion in determining which groups their Medicaid programs will cover and the financial criteria for Medicaid eligibility."
The discussions are interesting for context but otherwise meaningless. The only thing that matter is the final ruling. And unless that ruling includes a phrase such as "eligibility for federal benefits will be determined by the marriage laws of the current state of residence", then the DOJ will order all federal govt agencies to recongize all legally contracted marriages regardless of current residency just as they have historically done.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#206 Oct 3, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
The discussions are interesting for context but otherwise meaningless. The only thing that matter is the final ruling. And unless that ruling includes a phrase such as "eligibility for federal benefits will be determined by the marriage laws of the current state of residence", then the DOJ will order all federal govt agencies to recongize all legally contracted marriages regardless of current residency just as they have historically done.
creative writing again?
unhinged from reality though...
pure fiction.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#207 Oct 3, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
The discussions are interesting for context but otherwise meaningless. The only thing that matter is the final ruling. And unless that ruling includes a phrase such as "eligibility for federal benefits will be determined by the marriage laws of the current state of residence", then the DOJ will order all federal govt agencies to recongize all legally contracted marriages regardless of current residency just as they have historically done.
no comment on eligibility for federal programs being based on resident state determinations huh?
conflict with the tales you spin?

You are ignoring the entire federalism portion of the decisions...as you do the explicit findings of no suspect classification for gays and no constitutional right to gay marriage...

you still think the states will be forced to accept something (a determination by the state that issued the marriage even though that section isn't even at issue) when the central basis of the decision is a state's determination to ****provide marriage benefits**** is within the domain of that state alone...
The fed cannot make them accept another states determination any more than they can make the state accept the feds laws....

Like i said, I wish I would have a "told you so" moment when the decision gets made, but I know you will never grasp it even after you lose...you will bitch about the conservative court rather than even try to understand......
you will cover it with your creative writing...

there is a name for that you know, and it aint pretty...
but luckily, one of us has the class to not feel like they need to constantly insult...

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#208 Oct 3, 2012
TucksunJack wrote:
<quoted text>
States ARE REQUIRED to legally recognize the marriages, of all other states, and ALL OTHER LEGAL ACTS OF OTHER STATES. That's why in the states that don't allow cousin marriage, they recognize those cousin marriages performed in other states. A state is not free to pick and choose which acts of other states to legally recognize and which not to. Read SCOTUS's decsion regarding this in the General Motors case.
I happen to agree with that view, but there has been no Case taken to the SCOTUS that challenges those States who have specifically Amended their State Constitutions prohibiting such recognition.

As long as DOMA stands, that issue should not be raised.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#209 Oct 3, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
creative writing again?
unhinged from reality though...
pure fiction.
Believe what you want.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#210 Oct 3, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
no comment on eligibility for federal programs being based on resident state determinations huh?
conflict with the tales you spin?
You are ignoring the entire federalism portion of the decisions...as you do the explicit findings of no suspect classification for gays and no constitutional right to gay marriage...
you still think the states will be forced to accept something (a determination by the state that issued the marriage even though that section isn't even at issue) when the central basis of the decision is a state's determination to ****provide marriage benefits**** is within the domain of that state alone...
The fed cannot make them accept another states determination any more than they can make the state accept the feds laws....
Like i said, I wish I would have a "told you so" moment when the decision gets made, but I know you will never grasp it even after you lose...you will bitch about the conservative court rather than even try to understand......
you will cover it with your creative writing...
there is a name for that you know, and it aint pretty...
but luckily, one of us has the class to not feel like they need to constantly insult...
You can wish in one hand and crap in the other; see which one fills up first.

State benefits will be determined by the state of residency.
Federal benefits will be determined by the state of matrimony.

The DOJ will decide who qualifies for federal benefits and who doesn't.

Now get back to your wishing........
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#211 Oct 3, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>

State benefits will be determined by the state of residency.
Federal benefits will be determined by the state of matrimony.
The DOJ will decide who qualifies for federal benefits and who doesn't.
.
The DOJ ie FEDREAL GOVT cannot decide, that is the crux of the decisions...
and the place of marriage is not relevant to any other determination...NONE...its always WHERE YOU LIVE...

you only have one hand full, quess with what?

See how I have facts about how programs work and language from the decision...you have that handful...

good luck, but no, you are not going to convince me with your pie in the sky stories...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#212 Oct 3, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
The DOJ ie FEDREAL GOVT cannot decide, that is the crux of the decisions...
and the place of marriage is not relevant to any other determination...NONE...its always WHERE YOU LIVE...
you only have one hand full, quess with what?
See how I have facts about how programs work and language from the decision...you have that handful...
good luck, but no, you are not going to convince me with your pie in the sky stories...
The DOJ will be deciding, whether you agree or not.

Where you live is only relevant for STATE benefits, not federal.

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#213 Oct 3, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
The DOJ ie FEDREAL GOVT cannot decide, that is the crux of the decisions...
and the place of marriage is not relevant to any other determination...NONE...its always WHERE YOU LIVE...
you only have one hand full, quess with what?
See how I have facts about how programs work and language from the decision...you have that handful...
good luck, but no, you are not going to convince me with your pie in the sky stories...
Do you have the ability to file married joint on your federal income tax return? Does the State all ow you to do that? or does the Federal government allow you to because it recognizes your marriage?

I live in a state that my marriage is legal in, yet I am only entitled to the 389 State rights, benefits and privileges that married couples are offered here in California.....not the 1138 Federal rights, benefits and privileges that other legally married California couples are granted because their marriages are recognized by the federal government.......that is a VIOLATION of both my due process and equal protection that the Constitution says I'm allowed!!!

Now, why should my aunt and uncles marriage with no children be treated differently than my marriage with no children be treated by the federal government?

I believe that Justice Sandra Day O'Conner would say today just like she stated in her concurrent brief with the majority in the Lawrence ruling in 2003, you can't have a law on the books that is only directed at one group of individuals without having it affect all citizens........in other words, how could the Anti-Sodomy laws in Texas ONLY be enforceable against Gay men and not heterosexuals as well.........this is how DOMA, Section 3 is at the moment.......the federal government says one marriage is some how more elevated than another, even from the same state!!!!

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#214 Oct 3, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
The DOJ will be deciding, whether you agree or not.
Where you live is only relevant for STATE benefits, not federal.
The federal government is not empowered to enforce state laws. Period. If any given state says a couple is legally married, under federal law, that marriage is therefore legal in the eyes of the federal government whenever and where ever, regardless of local law governing it, because the laws of the place of celebration take precedence. Unless legal action is taken to dissolve existing same sex marriages across the country in states which don't recognize them(can you imagine?), they are going to be legal same sex marriages across the country in states which don't recognize them who are going to be rewarded with one hell of an equal protection claim.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#215 Oct 3, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>The federal government is not empowered to enforce state laws. Period. If any given state says a couple is legally married, under federal law, that marriage is therefore legal in the eyes of the federal government whenever and where ever, regardless of local law governing it, because the laws of the place of celebration take precedence. Unless legal action is taken to dissolve existing same sex marriages across the country in states which don't recognize them(can you imagine?), they are going to be legal same sex marriages across the country in states which don't recognize them who are going to be rewarded with one hell of an equal protection claim.
Yep. That's why overturning section 3 of DOMA is the stepping stone to overturing the remaining state bans.

I find it amusing when people like Jane DUH from Vermont claim Nebraska is going to dictate to the federal govt whether married same-sex servicemembers get on base housing at Offutt Air Force Base in Omaha! Or whether their kids will be able to visit the post hospital for medical care.

Hilarious!

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#216 Oct 3, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Yep. That's why overturning section 3 of DOMA is the stepping stone to overturing the remaining state bans.
I find it amusing when people like Jane DUH from Vermont claim Nebraska is going to dictate to the federal govt whether married same-sex servicemembers get on base housing at Offutt Air Force Base in Omaha! Or whether their kids will be able to visit the post hospital for medical care.
Hilarious!
I'd been sort of following along, but didn't want to waste a reply on that vacuum of reason. She's an idiot, the federal government cannot enforce state laws and the states handing out the federal etc, have to abide by federal regulation. There's a tsunami coming, but she is telling us how pretty the beach is, especially now that it just got so much bigger.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#217 Oct 4, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>

I find it amusing when people like Jane DUH from Vermont claim Nebraska is going to dictate to the federal govt whether married same-sex servicemembers get on base housing at Offutt Air Force Base in Omaha! Or whether their kids will be able to visit the post hospital for medical care.
Hilarious!
Yes, because I understand the DOMA decisions and you do not...
Military is a red herring...when the state's share in paying benefits, they make the call like with medicare and medicaid...

I know what this paragraph means, and you do not:
"However, the denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married does burden the choice of states like Massachusetts to regulate the rules and incidents of marriage; notably, the Commonwealth stands both to assume new administrative burdens and to lose funding for Medicaid or veterans' cemeteries solely on account of its same-sex marriage laws. These consequences do not violate the Tenth Amendment or Spending Clause, but Congress' effort to put a thumb on the scales and influence a state's decision as to how to shape its own marriage laws does bear on how the justifications are assessed."

see how a federal determination BURDENS the state PAYING BENEFITS?
that's why you are flat wrong...

claiming the fed will decide ignores the entire basis for these rulings...(which i bet you think confirm gay rights..they specifically do not)

but the Jane "Duh" was creative, like your point of view....

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#218 Oct 4, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, because I understand the DOMA decisions and you do not...
Military is a red herring...when the state's share in paying benefits, they make the call like with medicare and medicaid...
I know what this paragraph means, and you do not:
"However, the denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married does burden the choice of states like Massachusetts to regulate the rules and incidents of marriage; notably, the Commonwealth stands both to assume new administrative burdens and to lose funding for Medicaid or veterans' cemeteries solely on account of its same-sex marriage laws. These consequences do not violate the Tenth Amendment or Spending Clause, but Congress' effort to put a thumb on the scales and influence a state's decision as to how to shape its own marriage laws does bear on how the justifications are assessed."
see how a federal determination BURDENS the state PAYING BENEFITS?
that's why you are flat wrong...
claiming the fed will decide ignores the entire basis for these rulings...(which i bet you think confirm gay rights..they specifically do not)
but the Jane "Duh" was creative, like your point of view....
Military pay/benefits most definitely are NOT a red herring. You just don't like it because it proves you are wrong.

I've already said a hundred times that STATE benefits will be controlled by STATE law.

Federal benefits like military pay will be determined by federal law.

Anything in the ruling which isn't crytal clear will be interpreted by the DOJ who instructs all federal agencies on how the follow the law or implement any court ruling.

State benefits controlled by the state.
Federal benefits controlled by the feds.
For the rest of the federal programs, the feds will determine who is married.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#219 Oct 4, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Military pay/benefits most definitely are NOT a red herring. You just don't like it because it proves you are wrong.
I've already said a hundred times that STATE benefits will be controlled by STATE law.
Federal benefits like military pay will be determined by federal law.
Anything in the ruling which isn't crytal clear will be interpreted by the DOJ who instructs all federal agencies on how the follow the law or implement any court ruling.
State benefits controlled by the state.
Federal benefits controlled by the feds.
For the rest of the federal programs, the feds will determine who is married.
creative writing as usual, the FED HAS NO DISCRETION dude, that's what the decision say, the STATE"S Do and they need to be able to determine the fed's contribution LIKE medicare and NOT LIKE MILITARY PAY...
its a red herring because its FEDERAL PAY!

"For the rest of the federal programs, the feds will determine who is married."

This means you don't grasp the DOMA decisions at all...
a federal law defining marriage to include SSM marriage is EQUALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL...

and when the SCOTUS agrees and essentially ratifies these decisions, you will take it as a win until it applies and you se you are wrong and you are left calling everyone bigot because you "don't get it".

its hysterical you still think the fed will force decisions down to the states in light of these decisions...

" Nevertheless, Congress surely has an interest in who counts as married. The statutes and programs that section 3 governs are federal regimes such as social security, the Internal Revenue Code and medical insurance for federal workers; and their benefit structure requires deciding who is married to whom.

*****That Congress has traditionally looked to state law to determine the answer *****

does not mean that the Tenth Amendment or Spending Clause require it to do so.
Supreme Court interpretations of the Tenth Amendment have varied over the years but those in force today have struck down statutes only where Congress sought to commandeer state governments or otherwise directly dictate the internal operations of state government. Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 935 (1997); New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 188 (1992). "

If you could grasp it, this language speaks directly to your erroneous "beliefs"....

the federal govt looks to the state paying BENEFITS to determine marriage...as they will continue to do...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#220 Oct 4, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
creative writing as usual, the FED HAS NO DISCRETION dude, that's what the decision say, the STATE"S Do and they need to be able to determine the fed's contribution LIKE medicare and NOT LIKE MILITARY PAY...
its a red herring because its FEDERAL PAY!
"For the rest of the federal programs, the feds will determine who is married."
This means you don't grasp the DOMA decisions at all...
a federal law defining marriage to include SSM marriage is EQUALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL...
and when the SCOTUS agrees and essentially ratifies these decisions, you will take it as a win until it applies and you se you are wrong and you are left calling everyone bigot because you "don't get it".
its hysterical you still think the fed will force decisions down to the states in light of these decisions...
" Nevertheless, Congress surely has an interest in who counts as married. The statutes and programs that section 3 governs are federal regimes such as social security, the Internal Revenue Code and medical insurance for federal workers; and their benefit structure requires deciding who is married to whom.
*****That Congress has traditionally looked to state law to determine the answer *****
does not mean that the Tenth Amendment or Spending Clause require it to do so.
Supreme Court interpretations of the Tenth Amendment have varied over the years but those in force today have struck down statutes only where Congress sought to commandeer state governments or otherwise directly dictate the internal operations of state government. Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 935 (1997); New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 188 (1992). "
If you could grasp it, this language speaks directly to your erroneous "beliefs"....
the federal govt looks to the state paying BENEFITS to determine marriage...as they will continue to do...
More cut & paste of the same crap.

The state DOES NOT pay most federal benefits.

The overhwhelming majority of federal benefits such as social security, medicare, militay pay, VA benefits, etc are paid DIRECTLY by the federal govt.

In those cases the states have ZERO control over who the federal govt will recognize as married.

If the feds want to use the state of issue rather than the state of current residence, then that will be their decision, NOT the states.

That's why I keep telling you that unless the ruling from the SCOTUS SPECIFICALLY directs the federal govt to base benefits on the state of current residence, it will be up to the DOJ to decide.

Now cut & paste some more stupidity.........
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#221 Oct 4, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>

That's why I keep telling you that unless the ruling from the SCOTUS SPECIFICALLY directs the federal govt to base benefits on the state of current residence, it will be up to the DOJ to decide.
what do you call this crazy legal doctrine of yours where the context of the case means nothing?
its incongruous with how precedents actually work...

the issue presented is in that exact context! The decision of state's rights is not then at the discretion of the DOJ. Its a silly position!

You are dreaming if you think the issue isn't being resolved in the state's favor!

If the DOJ resolved it any other way, they would be back in court with the STATES!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#222 Oct 4, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
what do you call this crazy legal doctrine of yours where the context of the case means nothing?
its incongruous with how precedents actually work...
the issue presented is in that exact context! The decision of state's rights is not then at the discretion of the DOJ. Its a silly position!
You are dreaming if you think the issue isn't being resolved in the state's favor!
If the DOJ resolved it any other way, they would be back in court with the STATES!
Yes, the state decides on STATE benefits.

But the federal govt decides on FEDERAL benefits.

Context is subjective.

The precedent is that with the sole exception of same-sex couples, the federal govt has ALWAYS recognized a marriage as long as it was legally contracted, REGARDLESS of current state residence.

So take the DOJ to court if you don't like it. It'll get to the new liberal majority SCOTUS in about 5-8 years.
celes795

Rosebud, TX

#224 Oct 24, 2012
Question on the FF&C Clause. If they recognize a divorce isn't that than admitting that there was a legal marriage. I don't get how they can recognize one without the other. If there wasn't a marriage you can't divorce the people. Also, isn't marriage a legal agreement so shouldn't it too fall under the purview of the FF&C Clause?

I know it doesn't work that way but I just want to know why and how it can be justified. Why can states choose which legal proceedings to honor and which to not honor when the point of the FF&C Clause is that states don't get to choose.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#225 Oct 24, 2012
celes795 wrote:
Question on the FF&C Clause. If they recognize a divorce isn't that than admitting that there was a legal marriage. I don't get how they can recognize one without the other. If there wasn't a marriage you can't divorce the people. Also, isn't marriage a legal agreement so shouldn't it too fall under the purview of the FF&C Clause?
I know it doesn't work that way but I just want to know why and how it can be justified. Why can states choose which legal proceedings to honor and which to not honor when the point of the FF&C Clause is that states don't get to choose.
FFC applies primarily to court judgments. It was never intended to force every state to recognize every law from all the other states. It's meant to keep people from paying their debts or avoiding court orders just by moving to another state.

There has always been a public policy exception, which includes things like marriage laws, driver's license requirements, voting requirements, etc. States CHOOSE to recognize your driver's license or marriage license from another state, but they don't HAVE to recognize it.

The legal priciple is called comity. It's more of a courtesy than a requirement.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 22 min Freedomofexpression 9,878
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 24 min TomInElPaso 56,045
News Judge rejects couple's argument for refusing ga... 26 min Irish 58
News Worker fired for same sex 'No' vote hits out 54 min Wondering 18
News In post about marriage equality, Elton John ope... 59 min Pat Robertson s F... 4
Meadow Grove Gazette 1 hr JADENE 3
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 1 hr JADENE 69,625
News Michigan sued after gay couples are rejected fo... 2 hr Pat Robertson s F... 18
More from around the web