The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

But what if that couple then moves to state B which doesn't allow gay marriage? Do they file a joint federal return but two single returns in state B? Seems rather problematic. Several of the states I've lived in have items on the form that you just transfer over from your federal 1040 - they'd have to modify their forms (and probably accompanying tax regulations) to allow people to calculate their state tax directly without relying on the federal calculations.

A friend of mine is a lawyer who does a lot of real estate, estate and probate work. We were talking about the patchwork situation of gay marriage recognized in some jurisdictions and not others, and the complications that will arise in peoples estates when they live one place, have real property in other states, and every state, and the feds, are going their own way. Very good for lawyers and accountants, pretty complicated for everyone else.

But sooner or later everyone will be back on the same page. It's just going to take awhile to drag people kicking and screaming to that place.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

When did I say that?! Wow, did you miss the mark.

The biggest argument that I hear about homosexuality, and this is purely from an objective standpoint, is that homosexual couples will either raise or have significant influence upon children and, in doing so, teach them the "deviant practices" of homosexuality. This does not mean that a certain sexual orientation births a certain sexual orientation.

Whether it's genetically embedded in their DNA or a behavior learned from the parents is irrelevant (I didn't say "birth") - your argument still hinges on the premise that children acquire "gayness" from their parents.

In fact, those that argue against homosexuality I have found, in many cases, believe that it is not something that comes from birth, but is rather something learned. After all, why else would there be "pray the gay away" retreats that attempt to cleanse the "sinner" of such witchcraft? The only thing that I wrote to Bob was playing off of this belief that if you protect children from these "heathens", they will soon be gone because they cannot create and teach "heathens" of their own, and the problem will evaporate.

Ah, yes, the old "SOME people believe..." Well, sorry, but they are idiots. My parents taught me that homosexuality is okay, too, but I don't have a homosexual bone in my body, so to speak. Tons of straight people are out there right now teaching their kids that homosexuality is okay - guess we'll have to wait for them to die off, too...

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

I'm incredibly disappointed by Michael Savage's headline; I expected it to be much more outrageous. "Supreme Court strikes down DOMA, paves way for gay marriage in California"

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Tell me about it. It just messes everything up for those of us that are.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Whether it's genetically embedded in their DNA or a behavior learned from the parents is irrelevant (I didn't say "birth") - your argument still hinges on the premise that children acquire "gayness" from their parents.

Ah, yes, the old "SOME people believe..." Well, sorry, but they are idiots. My parents taught me that homosexuality is okay, too, but I don't have a homosexual bone in my body, so to speak. Tons of straight people are out there right now teaching their kids that homosexuality is okay - guess we'll have to wait for them to die off, too...

Whether you believe them to be idiots is your prerogative. Your second paragraph completely missed the mark, as what I wrote had absolutely nothing to do with the tolerance or acceptance of homosexuality, but rather the act itself. On top of this, nowhere in my argument did I say anything about an exclusive direct relationship between parent and child. You can observe this through my use of the phrase "significant influence". This could include kids sitting in front of the boob tube watching "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy". I'm not going to try to derive a starting point, as that's like trying to derive the absolute beginning of evolution.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

A friend of mine is a lawyer who does a lot of real estate, estate and probate work. We were talking about the patchwork situation of gay marriage recognized in some jurisdictions and not others, and the complications that will arise in peoples estates when they live one place, have real property in other states, and every state, and the feds, are going their own way. Very good for lawyers and accountants, pretty complicated for everyone else.

But sooner or later everyone will be back on the same page. It's just going to take awhile to drag people kicking and screaming to that place.

Yeah - I guess it's really no different from the situation we had yesterday, when married gay couples could file jointly in their states but had to file separately for federal. Definitely good business for the lawyers and accountants!

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Whether you believe them to be idiots is your prerogative. Your second paragraph completely missed the mark, as what I wrote had absolutely nothing to do with the tolerance or acceptance of homosexuality, but rather the act itself. On top of this, nowhere in my argument did I say anything about an exclusive direct relationship between parent and child. You can observe this through my use of the phrase "significant influence". This could include kids sitting in front of the boob tube watching "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy". I'm not going to try to derive a starting point, as that's like trying to derive the absolute beginning of evolution.

"The act itself"??? What exactly are you talking about here? Do you think there's only one homosexual "act"? Is it somehow a secret "act" that heterosexual parents don't know about and therefore can't teach their kids about? Or perhaps homosexual parents demonstrate this mysterious "act" for their kids to turn them gay? Is this "act" the same for gay male couples and for lesbian couples?

 

[Jimjamesak]

I would think that is a distinct possibility, but not necessarily a must, as the court did not rule on section 2 of DOMA. It probably comes down to the decision of each individual state to accept other states same-sex marriage licences or not regardless of the states own same-sex marriages or lack thereof.

I will admit that my Constitutional knowledge is pretty basic, but aren't states required recognize same-sex marriages in other states through Article IV? Or is that another question for SCOTUS to answer?

 

[MattS]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

I will admit that my Constitutional knowledge is pretty basic, but aren't states required recognize same-sex marriages in other states through Article IV? Or is that another question for SCOTUS to answer?

I'm not a scholar either, but from what I have read DOMA section 2 allows for each state to choose whether or not to recoginize other state same-sex marriages. You are probably right in that it will be a question for SCOTUS to answer at some point on DOMA section 2 once someone challenges it.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

I will admit that my Constitutional knowledge is pretty basic, but aren't states required recognize same-sex marriages in other states through Article IV? Or is that another question for SCOTUS to answer?

This is true. It does not, however, prohibit a state from denying or abridging the act of marriage between two people in their state, similar to how younger couples may hop a state or national border in order to get married.

 

[DisplacedCornellian]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Hang on a second... what sections were declared unconstitutional? I saw nothing within Hon. Kennedy's ruling about specific sections being unconstitutional while other sections are OK.

Section 3. Read the procedural history.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Section 3. Read the procedural history.

Just saw it; the comment was deleted.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

If killing in self defense is okay, then other forms of killing have to be also.

You said it, not me.

 

[unofan]

I will admit that my Constitutional knowledge is pretty basic, but aren't states required recognize same-sex marriages in other states through Article IV? Or is that another question for SCOTUS to answer?

That's another question for another case. Section 2 of DOMA was not before the court, and it is a legislative end around of the full faith and credit clause.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

I will admit that my Constitutional knowledge is pretty basic, but aren't states required recognize same-sex marriages in other states through Article IV? Or is that another question for SCOTUS to answer?

That likely will be an issue sooner than later. I know I've seen news articles about folks who moved to Texas and then wanted to split, but Texas said they don't recognize the marriage to begin with, so they won't approve the split. Given how mobile our society is, this will become a bigger problem as times goes on, and will somehow need to be sorted out. Of course, one could argue that if they move to Texas, they know they're moving to a state that doesn't recognize their marriage, so it's no surprise that Texas wouldn't get involved in a divorce of a marriage they don't recognize.

 

[joecct]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

I think you've misunderstood the decisions. Gay marriage does not have to be recognized by the other states, just that if a state does recognize gay marriage, the federal laws won't discriminate against them. For example, if State A allows gay marriage, a gay married couple could now file a married filing jointly tax return.

My guess is there is going to be a lot of overreaction to the cases today when they really didn't do much.

Section 2 (which I understand is before the courts somewhere) is the section that says that State A does not have to recognize a marriage that occurs in State B?? But does Loving sort of put the kibosh to that line of reasoning??

I'm an accountant, not a lawyer.

The simplest remedy to me is for Congress to kill the whole DOMA with a quick vote. IMO, it's an easy pass.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Since people and legislatures always seem interested these days in creating "situations" that give rise to a dispute that may make it's way to the Supreme Court to resolve the major conflicts of the day, here's what I'd like to see. I'd like some guy go get married in Texas to a woman, then go get married in Massachusetts to a guy, and see if he get's charged with bigamy anywhere.

Edit: I guess the order would have to be reversed, but you get the idea.

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Section 2 (which I understand is before the courts somewhere) is the section that says that State A does not have to recognize a marriage that occurs in State B?? But does Loving sort of put the kibosh to that line of reasoning??

I'm an accountant, not a lawyer.

The simplest remedy to me is for Congress to kill the whole DOMA with a quick vote. IMO, it's an easy pass.

Correct. Section 2 allows states to recognize (or not recognize) marriages from other states. As unofan said, it was a way to get around the full faith and credit clause.

As for Loving applying in this particular situation, that case was decided on race discrimination (something clearly protected by the 14th Amendment). The way the DOMA opinion was written, there are arguments to both sides as to whether Section 2 should survive, but I am inclined to read the opinion as saying that Section 2 should stay.

As others have said, there is still a long road of litigation ahead. IMO, today's rulings were very narrow, and the Court basically kicked the can down the road.

It will be interesting to see what, if anything, Congress decides to do in regards to what remains from DOMA.

 

[Jimjamesak]

Section 2 (which I understand is before the courts somewhere) is the section that says that State A does not have to recognize a marriage that occurs in State B?? But does Loving sort of put the kibosh to that line of reasoning??

I'm an accountant, not a lawyer.

The simplest remedy to me is for Congress to kill the whole DOMA with a quick vote. IMO, it's an easy pass.

I agree, it seems the easiest way to cut out a lot of this courtroom mess is to kill DOMA. It seems like Section 2 would get killed in court pretty quickly anyway.