DOMA Struck Down

[Tiger Wench]

I can solve that problem without having to marry another dude.  There should be no inheritance tax no matter if you leave your money to your spouse or some random stranger who lives under a bridge.  The gov't already took their slice of that money when it was made the first time.  They have no right to tax it again just because it now resides in a different bank account.

I completely agree.  Just like capital gains tax, which is a TOTAL double dip.

But the whole DOMA thing really does not change anything.  Gay marriage is still legal in California, but only in California.  Bring that  piece of paper to Texas, and it's worthless.  Not sure how you can sue one state for not recognizing the actions of another state.  Same with gun permits - my Texas concealed carry permit is not valid in California, and my guns are illegal.  IF I move to CA from TX, that's too bad. 

Lots of other items that are not subject to reciprocity between the states.  I guess you could argue that since straight marriage is reciprocal, gay marriage should be too, but that is a states' rights issue...

[AUTailgatingRules]

You do know that this is not a requirement now, right?

In order for said Lesbian in the suit against DOMA to get what she wanted,it absolutely was a requirement.

Fix the tax law and it is not

[AUChizad]

In order for said Lesbian in the suit against DOMA to get what she wanted,it absolutely was a requirement.

Fix the tax law and it is not

The lesbian had to marry a dude?

[AUTailgatingRules]

The lesbian had to marry a dude?

Actually yes.  Her wife looks a lot like a dude

[Vandy Vol]

was licking his chops over gays before it was cool to do so.

Gay ones are.

Fuck you guys.



No, seriously.  Give me your numbers so that we can meet up and fuck.

[Vandy Vol]

If a gay couple is married in CT, and moves to TX, their marriage is invalid. so when one of them dies, the Feds could collect taxes.  If they stayed in CT, they pay no taxes.

The marriage isn't invalid when a person moves; it just may not be recognized by the new state.  But the person is still legally married in a state for federal tax purposes.

Texas' laws on marriage are not going to affect whether the federal government decides to collect taxes from a homosexual couple, as the I.R.S. is a federal agency that is restricted by federal law, not Texas law.  So long as the couple is married in a state, the I.R.S. will (now) give them the federal tax benefits of a married couple.

Now whether or not Texas could disregard the marriage for state tax purposes, I'm not sure.  But the basic wording of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution suggests that they could not do so any more than they could attempt to disregard a heterosexual marriage that occurred in another state.

In regard to whether Texas or another state can disregard a homosexual marriage from another state, my understanding is that, previously, states which had passed a local DOMA constitutional amendment were allowed to disregard homosexual marriages from other states.  But now that the federal DOMA has been repealed, I am assuming that state DOMA amendments will be viewed as unconstitutional.  Of course, this will require judicial challenges in order to repeal those state amendments, but I assume this is how it will play out.

[WiregrassTiger]

I can solve that problem without having to marry another dude.  There should be no inheritance tax no matter if you leave your money to your spouse or some random stranger who lives under a bridge.  The gov't already took their slice of that money when it was made the first time.  They have no right to tax it again just because it now resides in a different bank account.

yep. If this were the real issue, your solution would be the answer. But this was not the real issue. It was a convenient and compelling story to promote gay marriage.

[Townhallsavoy]

- What about my question?  Will homosexuals be considered a protected class? 

[AUChizad]

yep. If this were the real issue, your solution would be the answer. But this was not the real issue. It was a convenient and compelling story to promote gay marriage.

What was the "real issue"? Ensuring that a federal law treats all people equally?

[Vandy Vol]

- What about my question?  Will homosexuals be considered a protected class?

Automatically?  No, I don't think so.  Protected classes have to be created by legislation, I believe.

Will this ruling lead to the legislative creation of a federally protected class?  Maybe, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will be a generalized protection that applies to all instances.  Vietnam era veterans are technically a "protected class" due to the Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974.  However, that is an anti-discrimination law that only applies to federal employers and federal job training programs.  It doesn't place any anti-discrimination requirements on private employers in relation to Vietnam era veterans.

[Tiger Wench]

blah blah blah a bunch of stuff

I came back just now to correct myself, but of course you had beaten me to it.  I wrote that on the fly this afternoon after reading a few articles, and came to a partially erroneous conclusion.  A couple legally married in one state does retain federal marriage benefits regardless of their state of residence - sort of.  See below - it may not be that simple...

In the meantime, as one gay-rights leader said, there will be "two Americas" — and a host of legal complications for many gay couples moving between them.

Wednesday's twin rulings from the high court will extend federal recognition to same-sex marriages in the states where they are legal, and will add California — the most populous state — to the 12 others in that category. That will mean about 30 percent of Americans live in states recognizing same-sex marriage.

But the court's rulings have no direct effect on the constitutional amendments in 29 states that limit marriage to heterosexual couples. In a handful of politically moderate states such as Oregon, Nevada and Colorado those amendments could be overturned by ballot measures, but that's considered highly unlikely in more conservative states.

[...]

Jonathan Rauch, a senior fellow with the Brookings Institution think tank in Washington, suggested that efforts to end that division would not be easy, given that many states have electorates that seem solidly opposed to gay marriage.

[...]

Peter Sprigg of the conservative Family Research Council said the court ruling on federal recognition "raises as many questions as it answers."

"Will recognition be based on the law in the state where the marriage was celebrated or the state in which the couple resides?" he said. "The doors may now be wide open for whole new rounds of litigation."

The National Conference of State Legislatures said the situation was clear for married gay couples in the 13 states recognizing same-sex marriage: They will be eligible for all federal marriage benefits.

"Outside of these states, federal marriage benefits become more complicated, as many commonly thought-of federal benefits, such as jointly filing on federal income taxes, are tied to a married couple's place of residence," the conference said.

Gay-rights activists immediately began lobbying the Obama administration and other federal officials to extend as many benefits as possible on the basis of where a gay couple's wedding took place, not on the state where they live.

[Saniflush]

In what world does a wife not have to pay inheritance tax? 

Fuck capital gains and inheritance tax

[Vandy Vol]

See below - it may not be that simple...

It's not...that's why I indicated that states will have to repeal their local DOMA amendments as well, just as your article suggests.  However, while the article only indicates that it would have to be done by vote, I'm pretty sure that they could also be repealed by judicial challenge.

As for the article's statement from Peter Sprigg contemplating whether they would have to live in the state in which they got married in order to receive federal benefits, I don't see how he can consider this.

The court just gave a ruling that essentially required equal application of laws related to federal benefits.  If a heterosexual couple can get married in Alabama, move to Tennessee, and yet not be required to get re-married in Tennessee in order to obtain federal benefits as a couple, then why would a homosexual couple be required to do so?  That seems like an unequal application of the same law to me.

[dallaswareagle]

I completely agree.  Just like capital gains tax, which is a TOTAL double dip.

But the whole DOMA thing really does not change anything.  Gay marriage is still legal in California, but only in California.  Bring that  piece of paper to Texas, and it's worthless.  Not sure how you can sue one state for not recognizing the actions of another state.  Same with gun permits - my Texas concealed carry permit is not valid in California, and my guns are illegal.  IF I move to CA from TX, that's too bad. 

Lots of other items that are not subject to reciprocity between the states.  I guess you could argue that since straight marriage is reciprocal, gay marriage should be too, but that is a states' rights issue...

CA has the gays
TX has the guns.

We can call it even.

Seriously I don't care who's gay and who's not, My wife's nephew is gay. Simply because I choose to not support a life style does not me homophobe or racist or whatever I am. 

[DnATL]

CA has the gays
TX has the guns.

We can call it even.

Seriously I don't care who's gay and who's not, My wife's nephew is gay. Simply because I choose to not support a life style does not me homophobe or racist or whatever I am.

And you're that uncle who put him there?

[dallaswareagle]

And you're that uncle who put him there?

Nope his parents fucked him up when he was a kid, For whatever reason when he was 5 or 6 they bought him a "Easy bake oven" When he opened that and was excited, I knew he would be gay. 

[AUChizad]

[Tiger Wench]

How come Bert and Ernie have to be gay when so many other same sex roommates are present in pop culture without a hint of being gay? 

Laverne and Shirley
Bosom Buddies (and they even cross dressed!!)
Sheldon and Leonard on BBT (even tho Sheldon is gay in real life...)

I realize that they share a bedroom, but that is as much of a reflection of how tiny NYC apartments can be as it is a hint that they are gay.  They don't share a bed.

This pisses me off.

And now Sesame Street has a muppet character who has a parent in prison. 

[AUChizad]

How come Bert and Ernie have to be gay when so many other same sex roommates are present in pop culture without a hint of being gay? 

Laverne and Shirley
Bosom Buddies (and they even cross dressed!!)
Sheldon and Leonard on BBT (even tho Sheldon is gay in real life...)

I realize that they share a bedroom, but that is as much of a reflection of how tiny NYC apartments can be as it is a hint that they are gay.  They don't share a bed.

This pisses me off.

And now Sesame Street has a muppet character who has a parent in prison.

It's basically a political cartoon by the New Yorker. Sesame street has not endorsed this in any way, and even declined to comment when pressed on it.

They have said many times that they're just roommates.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/bert-ernie-not-gay-sesame-street-says-statement-184052325.html

In other words, it's a joke. Lighten up.

[Vandy Vol]

They have said many times that they're just roommates.

They're just in the closet.