BREAKING: DOMA Is Dead!

[Flagg]

No article yet, but just came down, DOMA is unconstitutional.

[Siege]

Whoa. That's excellent news!

Here's a brief Beeb article:

The US Supreme Court has struck down a law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman only, in a landmark ruling.

The court's 5-4 vote said the Defense of Marriage Act, known as Doma, denied equal protection to same-sex couples.

The decision means that legally married gay men and women are entitled to claim the same federal benefits available to opposite-sex married couples.

[Thanas]

The times they are a-changing.

[Knife]

Cherry on top, Prop 8 is struck down with no standing and reverts to State court, which was to strike it down as unconstitutional.

[Admiral Drason]

So with prop 8 dead does that mean California is going to have legalized gay marriage again? Or do they have to re legalize it?

[Knife]

Unsure, some legal beagle on the radio right now saying you just can't open the gates today for marriage in Cali, but not sure since I'm hardly an expert on law.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Yes. Prop 8 is now defunct. Marriage equality in California is back!!

[Alyeska]

Hate to break it to you guys, but DOMA is not dead. Only the Federal recognition element was invalidated. Not the same thing. This was a narrow ruling only on the specific section that was challenged.

Its a good ruling, but not all encompassing. The Prop 8 ruling was also a narrow ruling because they dropped it after hearing it providing the smallest possible recognition without ruling against.

As I said before. SCOTUS doesn't actually like landmark rulings. Both of these were the most conservative possible beneficial rulings.

The boulder of discrimination is getting chipped away, but these were not earth shattering landmark rulings.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Hate to break it to you guys, but DOMA is not dead. Only the Federal recognition element was invalidated. Not the same thing. This was a narrow ruling only on the specific section that was challenged.

Its a good ruling, but not all encompassing. The Prop 8 ruling was also a narrow ruling because they dropped it after hearing it providing the smallest possible recognition without ruling against.

As I said before. SCOTUS doesn't actually like landmark rulings. Both of these were the most conservative possible beneficial rulings.

The boulder of discrimination is getting chipped away, but these were not earth shattering landmark rulings.

It wasn't the best possible outcome but the best realistic outcome. Most observers never believed the SCOTUS would nullify all anti-marriage laws since that would force the court to address the constitutionality of the issue, which they are very shy of doing. That same shyness seems to be the likely reason why they also opted not to uphold Prop 8 and be forced to address the merits of the that case. US v Windsor was a much easier case to apply a favorable ruling since its scope was a lot more narrow than Perry v Hollingsworth.

[Darth Lucifer]

Better tie the knot fast before the Rape-publicans start a new round of binge-legislating in response to the court ruling. I can already imagine Red State legislatures coming up with the newest angle to fuck over gays and lesbians, exactly how one state's legislature (TX?) started to take advantage of the SCOTUS ruling re: congressional districting laws (mentioned elsewhere in the N&P forum recently.)

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Better tie the knot fast before the Rape-publicans start a new round of binge-legislating in response to the court ruling. I can already imagine Red State legislatures coming up with the newest angle to fuck over gays and lesbians, exactly how one state's legislature (TX?) started to take advantage of the SCOTUS ruling re: congressional districting laws (mentioned elsewhere in the N&P forum recently.)

The anti-gay lobby is on the defense now. The most success they ever got to reversing marriage equality was in California and now that has been overturned. They don't have really any foreseeable hope in any other state and they've applied their bigotry to the highest level of law they can get their hands on - namely the constitutions of the other states that have bans on same-sex marriages (except for New Mexico). It's quite difficult to see how they're going to reverse this legal trend (not to mention the cultural / social trend) barring an attempt to amend the US constitution, which they badly failed to do back when they had their best chance of doing it in the 2000s.

[LadyTevar]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the main focus of DOMA was the "One man, One Woman" rule, correct? And SCOTUS just ruled that UnConstitutional, right?

Therefore, with the main focus of DOMA unConstitutional, why would that NOT mean it was killed?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

DOMA had two parts. One forbade the federal government from recognizing gay marriage in any situation whatsoever. That was invalidated; the federal government is now required to recognize gay marriages from states where gay marriage is legal as legally binding marriages for all federal purposes. The military has to treat you as married, the forest service, the Bureau of Land Management -- anything federal. Of course most people don't interact with the NFS or BLM on a regular basis but I suppose it might be worthwhile if you were buying property from them or getting a minerals lease. 99.9% of what the ruling does however is change tax, benefits, social security, medicaid and medicare and financial aid and food stamps and so on to take into account the fact that you're married, and give you the benefits of a married couple at that federal level, when your marriage is lawfully contracted by a state that issues gay marriage licenses. Currently those agencies are trying to figure out if they should accept a license from a lawfully contracting state when you're living in one that isn't, and the general assumption is that the answer will be "yes", so that you could jointly file federal taxes but not state taxes, you'd be eligible for social security survivor benefits, etc, etc, on a married basis even in Louisiana if you got your license elsewhere.

The other part of DOMA is that it contains a clause saying that no state had to recognize any other state's marriages. This part was not being challenged by United States vs. Windsor in primus, which was the one the Supreme Court ruled on. This means that the " full faith and credit" clause of the US constitution is functionally being suspended by the law declaring that, in this case, states don't have to render full faith and credit. This allows other states to keep discriminating against gay couples who got married elsewhere and returned home. Otherwise, they could refuse to allow gay marriages to be performed in their home state, but would have to treat every couple returning from a state where it was legal as being married in perpetuity. That is not the case, however, as the ruling did not address that part of the law. I am not sure it even could have, though it was at least a possibility.

[LadyTevar]

Thanks Duchess.

So now we need someone to challenge the "Full Faith & Credit" bit of the law, instead of letting people hide and pretend its' not there and blatantly breaking the Constitution.

[TimothyC]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the main focus of DOMA was the "One man, One Woman" rule, correct? And SCOTUS just ruled that UnConstitutional, right?

Therefore, with the main focus of DOMA unConstitutional, why would that NOT mean it was killed?

There are three sections of DOMA. The first doesn't establish anything while the second says that states don't have to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. That part still stands.

What was struck down was the third section of DOMA which was a federal definition of marriage as one man and one woman.

Section 2 will likely be struck down based on the Full Faith and Credit Clause (Article IV, Section 1), which establishes that States have to recognize ""public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." IE, you don't get un-married by crossing state lines. It's going to be an open and shut case, but Windsor was not that case.

Edit: and I got Snipped by Duchess.

Thanks Duchess.

So now we need someone to challenge the "Full Faith & Credit" bit of the law, instead of letting people hide and pretend its' not there and blatantly breaking the Constitution.

Correct. DOMA was patently unconstitutional when it was written, and people knew it. It was even at the time a "Doing something" bill.

[Crossroads Inc.]

As always, the best part of this is the reaction by the Right...
On Tuesday when the SCOTUS voted to gut voters rights, the response was:
"Hazzah! The fair and just Judges of the land have struck a blow against government tyranny!"

And but one day later, as Doma is also struct down, we get responses along the lines of:
"Curses! The evil Liberal Supreme court is nothing but a puppet of Obama and his gay loving cronies!"

Ah how the world shifts.

[Terralthra]

The other part of DOMA is that it contains a clause saying that no state had to recognize any other state's marriages. This part was not being challenged by United States vs. Windsor in primus, which was the one the Supreme Court ruled on. This means that the " full faith and credit" clause of the US constitution is functionally being suspended by the law declaring that, in this case, states don't have to render full faith and credit.

I'm not so sure that the court could rule that way in an open-and-shut manner. The second half of the Full Faith & Credit clause specifies "Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."

One reading of that might be that Congress is empowered to pass laws which prescribe manner and the effect thereof, and that included in the manner & effect clause is inherently the power to exempt certain "acts, records, and proceedings" from requiring state-to-state full faith & credit, and DOMA is Congressional legislation doing just that. The Supreme Court has been reluctant to interfere when the the pronouncements of one state violate the "public policy" of another, cf. Baker v. General Motors, 522 U.S. 222 (1998). Even in the time of anti-miscegenation laws, Full Faith & Credit was never used to force one state which did not allow interracial marriage to accept the marriage license of an interracial couple married in a state which did. Only Loving v. Virginia overturned them all through the Equal Protection clause, not FF&C.

[Simon_Jester]

The other part of DOMA is that it contains a clause saying that no state had to recognize any other state's marriages. This part was not being challenged by United States vs. Windsor in primus, which was the one the Supreme Court ruled on. This means that the " full faith and credit" clause of the US constitution is functionally being suspended by the law declaring that, in this case, states don't have to render full faith and credit. This allows other states to keep discriminating against gay couples who got married elsewhere and returned home. Otherwise, they could refuse to allow gay marriages to be performed in their home state, but would have to treat every couple returning from a state where it was legal as being married in perpetuity. That is not the case, however, as the ruling did not address that part of the law. I am not sure it even could have, though it was at least a possibility.

Isn't there another case coming up to challenge that?

If there isn't, I'm sure there will be a barrage of them coming soon, because it's a really obvious and simple constitutional challenge and there are thousands upon thousands of gay couples that could credibly make it.

I'm not so sure that the court could rule that way in an open-and-shut manner. The second half of the Full Faith & Credit clause specifies "Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."

Well, manner is not the issue, since gay marriage licenses are "proved" the same way as straight ones. The "effect" provision is more significant. You do have a point that this could sanely be interpreted as saying Congress can make a general law to that effect.

On the other hand, in that case the provision may well smack into the Fourteenth Amendment, since declaring that straight marriages must have effect across state lines while gay marriages don't is not equal protection.

Even in the time of anti-miscegenation laws, Full Faith & Credit was never used to force one state which did not allow interracial marriage to accept the marriage license of an interracial couple married in a state which did.

Were there challenges to bans on interracial marriages that used the full faith and credit clause?

[Terralthra]

Even in the time of anti-miscegenation laws, Full Faith & Credit was never used to force one state which did not allow interracial marriage to accept the marriage license of an interracial couple married in a state which did.

Were there challenges to bans on interracial marriages that used the full faith and credit clause?

Not that I can find. No one tried that argument. Generally, states recognized marriages performed in other states, even when the couple in question could not have been married in the current state under anti-miscegenation law. However, I did find this:

An exception to the general rule, however, is ordinarily made in the case of marriages repugnant to the public policy of the domicile of the parties, in respect of polygamy, incest, or miscegenation, or otherwise contrary to its positive laws.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

A very narrow ruling might only conceivably say that a state banning gay marriage must make make it a point of public record that a gay couple was married out of state, while still allowing the state to provide no benefits of marriage to a gay couple.

[Simon_Jester]

I am pretty sure "full faith and credit" doesn't work that way. Or if it did, that could have negative consequences down the line- it's not like marriages are the only piece of personal documentation or licensing that states mutually recognize. Reducing the full faith and credit requirement to allow you to say "yep, the other state granted this" and then ignoring that they did so isn't a good move.

[cadbrowser]

I was elated when I heard about DOMA and Prop 8. I know it isn't a landslide case, but you know, for the GLBT community and its supporters, any inch forward for equality is a good thing. It is about hope and the possibility of things to come.

In related news it looks like a Michigan judge was holding off on a somewhat similar case until he heard the ruling of the Supreme Court:

http://www.freep.com/article/20130626/N ... urt-ruling

[Darth Lucifer]

....And but one day later, as Doma is also struct down, we get responses along the lines of:
"Curses! The evil Liberal Supreme court is nothing but a puppet of Obama and his gay loving cronies!"

Ah how the world shifts.

You forgot the buzzwords "legislating from the bench" and "judicial activism."

[FaxModem1]

Dan Cathy, Chick-Fil-A's President, submitted a hateful tweet about this, that he then quickly deleted.

Huffington Post

Dan Cathy, Chick-Fil-A President, Tweets Response To DOMA Ruling, Then Deletes It (UPDATE)

The Huffington Post | By Cavan Sieczkowski Posted: 06/27/2013 12:50 pm EDT | Updated: 06/27/2013 4:37 pm EDT
Share on Google+
1,800
219
37
935
Get Gay Voices Newsletters:
Subscribe
Follow:
Proposition 8, Chick Fil a, Chick Fil a Doma, Chick Fil a Gay, Chick Fil a Gay Marriage, Chick Fil a Gay Rights, Dan Cathy, Dan Cathy Doma, Doma, Doma Responses, Doma Ruling, Doma Ruling Responses, Supreme Court Response, Supreme Court Ruling, Gay Voices News

Seems like not much has changed in the world of Chick-fil-A. After the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act on Wednesday, the restaurant chain's president and chief operating officer, Dan Cathy, apparently tweeted an anti-gay response to the ruling.

The court ruled Wednesday morning that DOMA, which barred the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, even in states where the union has already been legalized, is unconstitutional. Following the decision, the Supreme Court also dropped the case for Proposition 8, California's same-sex marriage ban.

Upon hearing the news, some celebrated for equality while others complained about how society has changed for the worse. Cathy, who made headlines last summer for saying his company supports the "biblical definition" of marriage, stood with the latter camp.

The Wall Street Journal's Speakeasy reporter Charles Passy was the first to report that Cathy reportedly tweeted an anti-gay marriage statement following the DOMA verdict. A reader sent Passy the tweet, which said it was a "sad day" for the nation and that the "founding fathers would be ashamed." The post has been deleted.

The tweet is still available on Topsy, an online platform that can index and trackback tweets and web pages.

dan cathy doma

In a statement emailed to The Huffington Post on Thursday, a spokesperson for the fast-food restaurant discussed the company's stance, but wouldn't directly comment on Cathy's tweet. "Dan Cathy, like everyone in this country, has his own views. However, Chick-fil-A is focused on providing great-tasting food and genuine hospitality to everyone," spokesman Jerry Johnston said.

Cathy's statement may not come as much of a surprise to some. The COO said in 2012 that "we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,'" the New York Times noted.

A backlash ensued after Cathy confirmed his anti-gay stance and his company was found to have ties to anti-gay groups, but Chick-fil-A claimed its only mission is to "treat every person with honor, dignity and respect" regardless of "belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender." The famed fried chicken joint has since tried to distance itself from any discrimination. Last September, it was reported that Chick-fil-A stopped donating to right-wing groups that oppose same-sex marriage. Cathy himself even seemed to progress, embracing a more open dialogue and befriending LGBT activist Shane Windmeyer, the founder and executive director of pro-LGBT college group Campus Pride.

UPDATE: 2:16 p.m. -- Chick-fil-A spokesman Jerry Johnston reached out to HuffPost Thursday afternoon to explain why Cathy decided to pull the tweet, saying, "He realized his views didn’t necessarily represent the views of all customers, restaurant owners and employees and didn’t want to distract them from providing a great restaurant experience."

The tweet in question:

[Crossroads Inc.]

Saw this posted recently.. I know I swore off posting cartoons but it.. It is just too awful to pass up!


Because once you legalize gay marriage, people all over the world will just suddenly TURN GAY!
Run for your lives!