LGBT News DOMA oral argument upate

It seems likely the DOMA appeal would be dismissed (provide wild-card Justice Kennedy doesn't give us any nasty surprises) based on the lack of standing, and it would not have any substantial impact on the state of same sex marriage on a federal level.

On the second day, Supreme Court considers DOMA - The Washington Post

 

how did DOMA get passed again? @_@ damn phobes...

 

from what I have been hearing and reading, Kennedy does seem likely, at this point, will strike down doma, pending that the liberal justices dont decide to rule on the issue of standing that it was not properly achieved.

 

Is it celebration time yet?

 

we wont get a ruling till june at the earliest, on either case.

 

But in the meantime it's looking neutral to good-ish right?

 

I guess so... And I hope so...

 

Signed into law by Bill Clinton.

---------- Post added 27th Mar 2013 at 03:36 PM ----------

It is looking better than good-ish,

DOMA is doomed, this is the conclusion of everyone I have read. Even the religious right are saying they know it now. 80% chance of being struck down.

 

that feels like... i was just a kid or not even born back then haha.

 

The outcome is going to have substantial federal impact on same sex marriage. I am not sure where you drew that conclusion, but I think you are way off here.

 

Listening to it now, appeals court arguments (of any variety, SCOTUS or otherwise) are always interesting.

Supreme Court of the United States

 

I believe you have misunderstood, or probably I have not expressed myself clearly.

What I meant was that even with the repeal of DOMA, it does not mean a blanket recognition of same sex marriage as a constitutional right would happen on the federal level. To the limits of my knowledge, DOMA merely codified the position that states are entitled not to recognise same sex marriages, and that the federal government does not need to recognise the said marriages for bureaucratic and benefit purposes.

However, I agree with you that with the repeal of this statute there would be substantial impact on same sex couples across the nation. For starters, same sex spouses of soldiers would be able to enjoy the same benefits as heterosexual couples, estate taxes would no longer extend to same sex couples (those that are married). Access to social benefits and insurance benefits for government employees would also be expanded.

That said though, I do not think the court would come to as bold a step as to recognise same sex marriage as a constitutional right, which would de facto impose same sex marriage throughout all the states.

Sorry for any factual errors

 

Still listening to this, I can only absorb so much at once

First, a bit of background. As I'm sure anyone who's studied constitutional law at any level (even high school) knows, the Constitution was written such that the federal government has enumerated powers - those powers which are given to the federal government by the constitution, and all others are reserved to the states. This is because the founding fathers feared an overly powerful federal government (and for those of you that think the federal government is too powerful now, it derives most of the power that I personally find unjust from the interstate commerce clause, but I digress).

The federal government has no right to define marriage, and the argument being made is that they have the right to define it AS IT APPLIES TO FEDERAL LAW, and that is all that DOMA is - a definition. However, it falls apart - in my view, the federal government MUST defer the definition of marriage to the state of the person claiming to be married.

I think Justice Breyer's arguments are clear and convincing. I didn't see this in any of the news coverage, but I think it's important. He basically asks what is different about gay marriage that gives the federal government interest in defining it as opposed to definitions that differ between the states on other topics (age of consent, medical test requirement, etc). Requiring one of those things, IMO, impinges on the rights of the states to define marriage how they choose.

I really think that's the crux of the issue - is can the federal government define marriage, for the purpose of federal law, as it declares convenient for itself, or must it defer to the state definition, which can differ in lots of other ways other than whether same-sex marriage is permitted or not.

 

You are not really imo getting to the heart of the matter. The issue is not that they are defining marriage, and how they are defining it, so much as they are creating two different kinds of marriage. And that there is a reason that they did this, a whole marriage, and the skim milk version of it.

That reason was moral objection to the homosexual lifestyle.

The law was created to stop a certain class from getting the CASH benefits even if they were married according to the states.

The Feds do define marriage every day. But the defense of DOMA was stated to provide for consistancy. When in reality, having two kind of marriage, is not consistant at all is it.

So the law is discriminatory being that there are two classes of marriage to be defined by the Fed.