Defense of Marriage Act found Unconstitutional by First Circuit Court of Appeals

[lawrocket 3]

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=10-2204P.01A

They found that it violates Equal Protection. Good.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[normiss 906]

Agreed this was the right thing to do.

[lawrocket 3]

I'm glad this was done. I'm still mad as hell about how it happened.

Things like this shouldn't be left up to the courts. It was a simple matter (yes - for two years a VERY simple matter) to just repeal the statute but instead chose to just leave it to the courts. The effect is that even though it was found unconstitutional, the Appeals court expects Certiorari and therefore is staying the mandatory injunction. So there's an injunction that has no teeth.

And the President and Congresspersons will come out in support of this ruling, but leave the poor souls who could actually get rights restored hanging for the next couple of years while it gets resolved with the SCOTUS.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

I'm glad this was done. I'm still mad as hell about how it happened.

I think I mostly agree with you. I would certainly prefer for this do be done by legislative action, not court rulings. It would be better for our country. I also cringe at how spineless the Obama administration is on the whole issue. If he supports marriage equality it is way past time to come out and do something about it.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

the Appeals court expects Certiorari and therefore is staying the mandatory injunction. So there's an injunction that has no teeth.

Would you repeat that in plain English, please?

We are all engines of karma

[lawrocket 3]

The trial court made the initial decision that DOMA is unconstitutional. It therefore issued a mandatory injunction requiring provision benefits to same sex partner. However, the trial court understood that the issue would be appealed. Because of the appeal, the judge stayed the injunction, which maintained the status quo pending further decision on appeal.

The appeals court agreed with the trial court, and did the same thing - thinking the SCOTUS will take it up.

So there is an order requiring same sex benefits. However, the court has said that the order will not be enforceable until the whole situation is clarified by the SCOTUS.

A continued waiting game.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[StreetScooby 5]

Thank you.

We are all engines of karma

[jgoose71 0]

I agree with the first circuit court, and I am republican....

However, as I have stated in the past, before it becomes law of the land, some things need to be addressed.

1. A marriage is still between a man and a woman. Gay couples should be civil unions and defined as such. Marriage has existed long before governments, and what we are talking about here is not a religious union, but government privileges given to gay couples.

2. The other reason why civil unions need to be defined as such is because of the unique situations that arise when gay couple decide to become parents. What happens to the kids when they split is completely and totally random depending on the judge. These items need to be addressed so gay couples completely understand what happens when they decide to adopt or use artificial insemination to have a child. Defining these issues in the law will not only benefit LGBT couples and their children, but will also help legitimize their union.

Just my 2 cents...

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

...but government privileges...

What are these?

Having lived in San Francisco for 3 years, I know lots of gay people. To lump them into one category is simply ridiculous. There's the Castro crew, and their unhealthy life style. There's also alot of other gays who have dedicated partners. I have friends from elsewhere that fall into the latter category. Personally, I have no problem with responsible dedicated people being happy together.

Re: children, I do have mixed emotions on that. At the same time, one of my college classmates (who is a brilliant man dedicated to his partner) would make an incredible parent, much more than alot of other folks I know. Again, very mixed emotions here.

Exactly what is a stake with government sanctioning gay-marriage? I don't fully understand that issue.

We are all engines of karma

[jgoose71 0]

Second paragraph in the opinion:

Quote

DOMA does not formally invalidate same-sex marriages in states that permit them, but its adverse consequences for such a choice are considerable. Notably, it prevents same-sex married couples from filing joint federal tax returns, which can lessen tax burdens, see 26 U.S.C. § 1(a)-(c), and prevents the surviving spouse of a same-sex marriage from collecting Social Security survivor benefits, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 402(f), (i). DOMA also leaves federal employees unable to share their health insurance and certain other medical benefits with same-sex spouses.

I don't think anyone out there is for discrimination, despite what some people may tell you.

My issue is has always been when a gay couple adopt, because 2 men or 2 women can't necessarily have a kid yet, and one partner walks out claiming no responsibility for a kid they decided to both have because "he's/she's not of my blood."

Equal rights sometimes means equal ass-pain.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Notably, it prevents same-sex married couples from filing joint federal tax returns, which can lessen tax burdens, see 26 U.S.C. § 1(a)-(c), and prevents the surviving spouse of a same-sex marriage from collecting Social Security survivor benefits, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 402(f), (i). DOMA also leaves federal employees unable to share their health insurance and certain other medical benefits with same-sex spouses.

I can't agree with this. If you have a dedicated spouse you've spent, or are spending your life with, you should be able to pass on these benefits.

We are all engines of karma

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

Quote

Notably, it prevents same-sex married couples from filing joint federal tax returns, which can lessen tax burdens, see 26 U.S.C. § 1(a)-(c), and prevents the surviving spouse of a same-sex marriage from collecting Social Security survivor benefits, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 402(f), (i). DOMA also leaves federal employees unable to share their health insurance and certain other medical benefits with same-sex spouses.

I can't agree with this. If you have a dedicated spouse you've spent, or are spending your life with, you should be able to pass on these benefits.

And that is why DOMA was shot down. Same sex couple would not be able to pass these benefits along and was ruled discriminatory.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[Marinus 0]

Quote

1. A marriage is still between a man and a woman.

Yeah, that would be the ignorant Western Christian definition of marriage. In the meantime on planet earth people marry trees etc. Gay marriage is in fact a rather boring variation on the theme of marriage that pre-dates Christianity and Western society. And even if you didn't know this, how he hell did you miss the fact that polygyny is common even in this day and age?

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

Quote

1. A marriage is still between a man and a woman.

Yeah, that would be the ignorant Western Christian definition of marriage.

It's less the ignorant Western Christian definition and more of the current US legal definition. As I stated earlier, Most people that you talk to are less bigoted and more to the point of the law needs to change to reflect unique situations that come about from these unions.

US law is largely based on Christian Judea Values.

Quote

In the meantime on planet earth people marry trees etc. Gay marriage is in fact a rather boring variation on the theme of marriage that pre-dates Christianity and Western society.

Um, no. While same sex unions and other religions have been around since as long as humans have been on earth, same sex marriages have not. Since same sex unions very rarely result in kids, they have not until recently been considered "family units" or "marriages". If you know of references that I don't on the matter, feel free to elaborate. Not saying that they don't, but that they have probably been wiped out in the last 2012 years.....

Quote

And even if you didn't know this, how he hell did you miss the fact that polygyny is common even in this day and age?

Since Polygamist marriages have been widely accepted in a lot of religions and result in "family units", I fully expect that they will be included and excepted in US law soon. To not do so would be considered discriminatory.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[lawrocket 3]

What's ignorant about the definition? Or is it that you are not ignorant because, well, you aren't?

Cut the shit. If you don't think it should be the definition then stick with that. But as a human, you are not omnipotent. To call it "ignorant" is to be an ignoramus.

Jgoose - having a judge take control is what happens with hetero couples. Either you and the other parent agree or the judge tells you what to do. If a couple is to adopt, it works the same way whether it's a gay couple of a hetero couple.

What you're asking for with kids is actually what happens. There's a much lesser chance of an adopted couple of a kid having a runaway "father" than of some hetero inseminator leaving the baby mam all alone.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

Jgoose - having a judge take control is what happens with hetero couples. Either you and the other parent agree or the judge tells you what to do. If a couple is to adopt, it works the same way whether it's a gay couple of a hetero couple.

What you're asking for with kids is actually what happens. There's a much lesser chance of an adopted couple of a kid having a runaway "father" than of some hetero inseminator leaving the baby mam all alone.

Most of the time, yes, the right thing happens. However, the law is written for hetero couples and LBGT couples will sometimes have unusual circumstances that are not covered by the law. In those cases, the judge does what he thinks is best following the law.

Specifically, are the cases where a gay couple get the assistance of a friend to have a child. With no contracts, adoption papers, etc, if the couple breaks up the good Samaritan gets stuck with the child support.

In an extreme case in Switzerland (not sure, can't remember) I remember reading about a judge tracking down an anonymous donor from a sperm bank to pay child support. Would that happen here? Probably not, but let's make sure.

In cases where the kids are adopted, there are legal papers that spell out custody that the judge can use. In cases where their are no legal papers so to speak, I just think there should be a standard, especially for the parent that is not a biological donor.

Edited to add:
A gay couple has a kid, but there union is not recognized and the kid is not biologically his, how do you hold that person accountable?

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[DaVinci 0]

Civil unions for everyone.... Hetero, Homo.... Everyone.

Marriage is a religious term, get the Govt out of it and have it only grant civil unions for all.

If a couple wants to get "married" then they can go to a church. If they want the benefits of a union recognized by the Govt, then they can get a civil union from the Govt also.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Specifically, are the cases where a gay couple get the assistance of a friend to have a child. With no contracts, adoption papers, etc, if the couple breaks up the good Samaritan gets stuck with the child support.

Depends on the nature of the sperm donation. Or the nature of the surrogacy. Though there may be an interesting equal protection issue with the "presumed father" status of a married man. Does that presumption apply to a woman?

So yes, there are some things to work out. But you raised the point - the Good Samaritan MAY get stuck because the law looks at the best interest of the child, not the parents, biological or otherwise.

"Hey. I just donated sperm to the lesbian couple."
"So you're the father."
"Yes."
"The 'Tough shit' doctrine applies."

So they BETTER contract up if they are going to do it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[davjohns 1]

Fully agreed. Now, how many people can I be civil unioned with? Take out the religious portion and it seems clear there is no reason to prohibit polygamy. For that matter, there's no reason to regulate it at all.

If men and women are equal, there is no reason for regulation of marriage or civil unions. Everything provided under the law was meant to protect a lesser party (traditionally the woman) from abuse and abandonment. If we are all equal, those protections are no longer needed. They can be easily replicated by a Last Will, a marriage contract and the appropriate arrangements with your health insurance provider, etc. The courts are perfectly suited to determining property rights pursuant to a contract that the parties have decided to terminate without all the extraneous regulation for marriage.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[davjohns 1]

YES! My point exactly!

Just like fences make good neighbors; good contracts make clear agreements. Get the government out of telling people what constitutes a family, marriage, etc. Whoever wants to enter into a permanent relationship with another person(s) can put it in writing. There! Done! Everyone knows what they are getting into, what's expected of them, and what the exit strategy is. No government involvement needed unless someone tries to breach the contract.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Depends on the nature of the sperm donation. Or the nature of the surrogacy. Though there may be an interesting equal protection issue with the "presumed father" status of a married man. Does that presumption apply to a woman?

So yes, there are some things to work out. But you raised the point - the Good Samaritan MAY get stuck because the law looks at the best interest of the child, not the parents, biological or otherwise.

"Hey. I just donated sperm to the lesbian couple."
"So you're the father."
"Yes."
"The 'Tough shit' doctrine applies."

So they BETTER contract up if they are going to do it.

1997 I had a friend that was looking to have a kid with her domestic partner. They both were trying to get pregnant so they both could have a kid.

One asked me to be her donor, I said no for just this reason. They were upset and basically it trashed our friendship. Her partner got pregnant, she did not. FFWD to today and they are not together anymore and the one with the kid went after the donor for child support.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Now, how many people can I be civil unioned with? Take out the religious portion and it seems clear there is no reason to prohibit polygamy. For that matter, there's no reason to regulate it at all.

Great question.... I personally don't care how many you are with. Consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they want with other consenting adults.... With the one caveat that it damages no third party.

Legally, I am sure it is not that simple simply because no one will let it be that simple.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Legally, I am sure it is not that simple simply because no one will let it be that simple.

What kind of society do you want to live in?

We are all engines of karma

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Notably, it prevents same-sex married couples from filing joint federal tax returns, which can lessen tax burdens, see 26 U.S.C. § 1(a)-(c), and prevents the surviving spouse of a same-sex marriage from collecting Social Security survivor benefits, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 402(f), (i). DOMA also leaves federal employees unable to share their health insurance and certain other medical benefits with same-sex spouses.

I can't agree with this. If you have a dedicated spouse you've spent, or are spending your life with, you should be able to pass on these benefits.

I work for a company that contracts to the federal government, and my health insurance covers my domestic partner. Neither my employer nor my insurer cares that we're not married, they pay for it as if we were. The problem is simply that the IRS cares that we're not married, so the portion of my insurance premiums paid for by my employer are considered taxable, whereas the exact same benefits for a spouse are not. The difference? I have about $3k/year taken out of my paycheck to cover taxes on "imputed income", i.e. my employer's contribution to my partner's health insurance. Our fix is easy...as I have an outie and she has an innie, the "domestic partner tax" will go away when we marry this fall. I'll basically get a $3k/year raise right off the bat, entirely from the government (its cost neutral to my employer). It bothers me that gay couples don't have that option, and that the federal government is imposing a significant tax on them just because they have the same genitalia.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Our fix is easy...as I have an outie and she has an innie, the "domestic partner tax" will go away when we marry this fall.

You bring up an obvious and simple solution to this gay marriage problem. If a same-sex couple wants to get married, one of them can just have a sex change. Then they can have a good old traditional marriage between one man and one woman. Everyone's happy; problem solved.