Prop 8 & DOMA Decisions Will Be Handed Down Today — Page 6

I wish Madbrian (and her spouse).

Best quote of the day goes to Pelosi!

Michelle Bachmann:

"For thousands of years of recorded human history, no society has defended the legal standard of marriage as anything other than between man and woman. Only since 2000 have we seen a redefinition of this foundational unit of society in various nations," she continued. "Today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to join the trend, despite the clear will of the people's representatives through DOMA."

"What the Court has done will undermine the best interest of children and the best interests of the United States," she concluded.

A short time later, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, was asked what she thought about Bachmann's statement.

"Who cares?" she replied.

Bachmann is an idiot. As is anyone who tries to criticize the Court for striking down a law duly passed by Congress. That's the court's job. Where were all these people just yesterday when the Court struck down the Voting Rights Act section 4, a law, yes, duly passed and renewed by elected representatives in Congress.

Saying a law was passed by peoples' representatives is not a reason why the Court shouldn't strike something down no matter what side you're on. (Scalia could stand to learn the same based on his bewildering dissent)

---

Updated On: 6/26/13 at 02:40 PM

Obama = Awesome

I bet my husband is overjoyed at what happened today. When I finally meet him, I'll be sure to ask.

We're thrilled, of course. We're just waiting to see how this impacts immigration rights for those who don't live in decent states. Also, I would love to know how it impacts those of use who reside elsewhere. We always have to bring ridiculous amounts of documentation, files on thumb drives and just pray nothing happens when we are in the states. They don't recognize our marriage, despite the fact that it's legal here. We are super scared of traveling with our daughter. Since I didn't adopt her, I could have problems should anything happen to my wife. Sigh. Thank God for Immigration Equality. They have been excellent providing answers to these murky water questions.

---

Jordan, my first instinct would be to say "no". Court decisions, unless they say otherwise, generally only apply from that point in time forward, not retroactively. Which is actually a good thing - that way you can't be accused of breaking a law which wasn't a law when you were acting. The law was what it was when those people were filing taxes, and now it's changed.

What a day!
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel says the Pentagon will begin the process to extend health care, housing and other federal benefits to the same-sex spouses of military members as soon as possible.

Right, but Windsor will be getting that money back, so is that just a special case?

Legally, no. That would only happen if it was a class action lawsuit which would be very difficult to put together and could have been stopped far earlier on standing and jurisdiction issues and probably would have never made it to the Supreme Court. Because Windsor was the injured party, she gets to recover damages but no one else does since it wasn't class action.

It only applies from this point forward. I don't think there'd be any precedent to now file a class action (I think it would be tossed out of any court.)

---

So, since my husband and I have property in Michigan, we are filing a law suit with the state to get them to overturn their state wide ban.

This needs to happen in the state who already have placed laws on the books discriminating against gays getting married.

Still a ways to go, but I will be thrilled to not have to file the multiple tax forms we've been forced to do every year!

---

Adding a bit of humor, Joan Rivers posted the following on her Facebook page today:

"Any straight person complaining about the Supreme Court striking down DOMA should be forced to hire a heterosexual wedding planner!"

---

Good day.

---

So, since my husband and I have property in Michigan, we are filing a law suit with the state to get them to overturn their state wide ban.

Theatrediva, have you filed suit already? If so, I applaud your efforts. That is how all these cases start, with everyday people deciding they are being treated unjustly. Who knows, one day it could actually land in the Supreme Court. Are you paying for an attorney? If you are I'd highly recommend you look into reaching out to groups like the ACLU or your preferred group *insert progressive legal action group here* who will probably pay for your counsel, perhaps put you with other couples filing suit (better chance of getting noticed and proving enough specific harm), and have experience with how to handle these kinds of cases.

If that couple resides in one of the back asswards states or territories where their union is not recognized the caregiver would NOT be eligible to take the extended leave to care for the sick spouse.

Since I'm not an attorney I fail to see how this comports with the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment.

You ask good questions and the answer is no one knows for certain. It will be up to Obama and his team to decide how they handle cases where someone is legally married and recognized by the federal government in one state and then moves to a state where they're not recognized. My guess is the government will give them recognition regardless, but they may not, and other administrations may act differently in the future.

Your last question is very legitimate and will ultimately be decided by courts in the future. This was not the question before the Supreme Court today though and it would have been unusual for them to have ruled on it as Edie Windsor case was limited in scope strictly to section 3 and not the other section that instructs states they don't have to recognize gay marriages other state recognized. Someone will likely not get the benefits they should have received after moving, sue, and I'd imagine, the law would be changed since it seems to be a flagrant violation of equal protection, due process, and the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution.

Again, this process is long and slow, but it's what we have to deal with. The Court isn't the ideal avenue to start a long-term civil rights movement. Ideally, this would move much faster through Congress, but I think at this point, we all know how absurd that sounds.

---