1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

LGBT News Attorney general to extend recognition of same-sex marriage rights to all states

Discussion in 'Current Events, World News, & LGBT News' started by BradThePug, Feb 8, 2014.

  1. BradThePug

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2011
    Messages:
    6,573
    Likes Received:
    288
    Location:
    Ohio
    Gender:
    Male (trans*)
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Some people

    More here
     
  2. SemiCharmedLife

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2013
    Messages:
    3,062
    Likes Received:
    85
    Location:
    KY
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Maybe I'm missing something, but is this very different from what the government has already said about its recognition of same-sex marriages?
     
  3. BradThePug

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2011
    Messages:
    6,573
    Likes Received:
    288
    Location:
    Ohio
    Gender:
    Male (trans*)
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Some people
    Before, the federal govt. only recognized same-sex marriages in states that considered it legal. If you lived in a state that did not, then they would not recognize the marriage, since the state did not recognize it.
     
  4. SemiCharmedLife

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2013
    Messages:
    3,062
    Likes Received:
    85
    Location:
    KY
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Ah, got it.
     
  5. girlonfire

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2013
    Messages:
    163
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    USA
    How did this not happen earlier is my question
     
  6. HuskyPup

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2013
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    An Igloo in Baltimore, Maryland
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    What I'm worried about is this: If the Republicans get in, and appoint a conservative attorney general, these rights would all just go away...

    *poof, vanished, gone*

    So though I see this as a good sign, I think gay rights will be a major issue in the upcoming elections in 2014 and 2016.
     
  7. An Gentleman

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2013
    Messages:
    1,673
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Cali
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    A few people
    ^Rude.

    It's not conservatism and Republicans that are bad, it's bigotry and ignorance- politicians are puppets for the people- no politician would do something that didn't appeal to their base, which is a big reason why many of them are corrupt people. They'd do anything that they perceived to get them a ton of votes.

    Many conservatives in this era were raised in a time when homosexuality was considered a mental disorder. And as long as gay rights are a political playing card, one side will oppose the other.
    You can see where this logic is going, right?

    But, yeah, this is great news and the year is looking good already!
     
    #7 An Gentleman, Feb 8, 2014
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2014
  8. Aldrick

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Virginia
    I don't think it would be that simple, because it would be so disruptive to the lives of those in a same sex marriage. Any attempt to do it would instantly land in court, and I can't imagine a court ruling against the same sex couples. Not only would that feel like it's subverting the DOMA ruling, but it would also be effectively nullifying already existing marriages recognized by the Federal Government. I just can't imagine a scenario where that happens.

    That doesn't mean they wouldn't try, but I don't think they'd be successful.
     
  9. HuskyPup

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2013
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    An Igloo in Baltimore, Maryland
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Not at all. I don't see any major/influential Republicans endorsing these actions. Quite the opposite.

    And yes, not all Republican individuals are anti-gay, but as a party, they still are, and that can't be denied. Facts are facts.

    And I think depending on who got in, say a Rand Paul or Cruz type, you would see them try to change and disrupt things, DOMA ruling or not. I think they would at least try to pander to their bases, and be as obstructionist as possible.

    I just don't trust Republicans on championing GLBT issues.
     
    #9 HuskyPup, Feb 8, 2014
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2014
  10. blueberrymuffin

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2013
    Messages:
    672
    Likes Received:
    0
    This action would mostly make the whole discrimination by the other 34 states irrelevant, since over 1000 rights are tied to the fed. The only concern would be a future bigoted AG undoing all this, which is why court action is still needed. The one major remaining obstacle for couples in those states would be adoption rights.
     
  11. Rakkaus

    Rakkaus Guest

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2012
    Messages:
    878
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    New York
    Well the precedent was already set when AG Holder announced he would extend federal recognition to the same-sex couples who got married in Utah when it was briefly legalized there, even though the state, under conservative Republican rule, refuses to recognize its own state's marriage licenses issued during that period. This was only the next logical step.

    And basically this means a same-sex couple who lives in Sodomitesareabominations, Mississippi can go on a nice vacation to New York City, get married in New York State, and then return home to Mississippi and enjoy all the federal benefits of marriage even though their own backward state would never recognize their marriage and never allow same-sex marriage.

    The Republican Party, and the conservative movement at-large, are vehemently anti-gay and absolutely oppose any extenson of equal marital rights. If a Republican ever gets back in control of White House (gods forbid) and appoints a Republican attorney general, this policy would come to an end immediately. (Fortunately I'm fairly optimistic that the modern Republican Party could not win a presidential election anytime soon.)

    I'm not sure what your point is that "conservatives in this era were raised in a time when homosexuality was considered a mental disorder". Many liberals were raised in the same era, yet they saw that it was wrong even then. Then there are many people who believed that homosexuality was a mental disorder back then but then with increased visibility and education in the modern world evolved in their views in order to be LGBTQ-affirming.

    So I'm sorry, the "conservatives in this era were raised in a time when homosexuality was considered a mental disorder" is bullshit. It is not a valid excuse nor was it ever was a valid excuse for the modern conservative movement and Republican Party's extreme homophobia today.

    Many southern white conservatives were raised in an era where black people were inferior and to be treated as second-class citizens. They grew up in an era where Jim Crow segregation was the law, and black people were, by LAW, not allowed to be in the same schools, hell, not even allowed to use the same water fountains, as white people. They were raised to believe interracial marriage was a sin. Would you really argue that such people are allowed to be racist today because of the racist environment in which they were brought up in?
     
  12. Geek

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2013
    Messages:
    372
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Hawaii
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Questioning
    Out Status:
    All but family
    So let me get this straight. Before hand the federal government only recognized marriages from residents where it's legal? So the feds would recognize marriage from NY in WA but not Canada in Texas? Sounds kinda stupid to me.

    Guaranteed all the crazy right wingers are going "would you look at that. Eric Holder deciding what's legal and what's not. This is unconstitutional! We must hate the fags!".
     
  13. Chip

    Board Member Admin Team Advisor Full Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2008
    Messages:
    16,551
    Likes Received:
    4,750
    Location:
    northern CA
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    I suspect that Obama's senior staff has been working on these issues all along, and they're rolling these things out a little at a time to basically soften the blow to the bigots.

    While a Republican administration elected after Obama could try to "undo" the progress that's been made, I tend to agree that by then, popular opinion will have swung even further and so between the mess it would create with rights and laws, the inevitable lawsuits, and the fact that between now and early 2017, we'll undoubtedly see more positive court decisions and more states making gay marriage legal... I'd like to believe that even the most ignorant asshat Republican would realize that it would be foolish to try and roll back progress to that extent.

    The closest parallel we have is the passage of the Civil Rights act in 1964, to which there was vehement and violent opposition... but by the time Nixon took office in 1969, it was pretty much a done deal, and I think we'll see the same here.

    Also... I have to agree that, while there are certainly some Republicans who aren't bigoted, ignorant assholes... the overwhelming majority are. There's a reason that the Republican Party has been on the losing side of every social progress fight in the last 150 years, and it isn't because they're sensible, openminded people. :slight_smile:
     
  14. AKTodd

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2013
    Messages:
    3,190
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Norfolk, VA
    Re the government recognizing marriages on a state by state basis.

    When the Supreme Court knocked down DOMA, the IRS followed up shortly thereafter by saying that, for tax purposes, the Federal government would recognize any same-sex marriage that was performed where it was legal, regardless of whether or not gay marriage was legal in the state the couple actually lived in. So, if you live in a state where gay marriage isn't legal, you can go to one where it is, get married, and go back home and the IRS will let you file joint tax returns, won't tax you for the value of extending your job benefits to cover your spouse (imputed income), and various other things.

    I work in the benefits field and so deal with this sort of thing a lot. Last year I probably had to explain how this works to a dozen different client teams since most of our clients extend DP benefits to their employees, but charge imputed income. If an employee get married in a state where SS marriage is legal, then they will no longer be charged.

    On a somewhat different note, the fall of DOMA also means that a US citizen can marry a same-sex spouse from another country and they will be treated the same as an opposite sex spouse, being fast tracked to US citizenship and able to move here if they wish.

    Looking at the CNN article, basically the Feds are moving to extend Federal recognition beyond the area of taxation. Certainly a good thing.

    Todd
     
    #14 AKTodd, Feb 9, 2014
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2014
  15. DMark69

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    535
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Cheyenne WY
    We don't have all federal benefits yet. For instance the VA only recognizes same sex marriages if you live in a state where same sex marriage is legal. I actually checked on this within the past week. I am a veteran, but in order to include my husband's income on a VA loan, I would loose half of my loan guarantee benefit, since he is not recognized as my husband in WY even though we have an Iowa marriage license.

    The Justice Dept is a major step, and opens the VA up to lawsuits to correct their policy, hopefully someone takes that torch and runs with it. Outserve/SLDN are you listening?
     
  16. PurpleGrey

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2013
    Messages:
    825
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    LA county
    You know how in some states, you can start driving and consent to sex younger than in others, and if you go to a different state with a license when you're not that state's driving age, you can still drive? It's the same basic principle, so why we couldn't be recognized when we go to a different state from the beginning is beyond me.

    Still, I guess I can't complain. I'm happy we do get these rights now.
     
  17. blueberrymuffin

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2013
    Messages:
    672
    Likes Received:
    0
    In some regards. I believe married couples in say texas could file federal join taxes, but in other areas, it was an endless legal quagmire.
     
  18. Sorceress of Az

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2014
    Messages:
    495
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Near Saint Louis, but in Illinois.
    Does this mean people in any states no matter who they are will be able to get married?
     
  19. stocking

    stocking Guest

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2013
    Messages:
    7,542
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    New England
    Gender:
    Female
    Sexual Orientation:
    Lesbian
    I'm some people are worried about the right wing taking away rights do the simple thing just don't vote for them if they continue that hating gay people crap they'll get the message after a while . :dry: