Supreme Court strikes down DOMA

[Admiral Yi]

isn't it essentially 50 states now? Okay, technically not, but what really matters is federal law. All a couple has to do is get a plane ticket to a same sex marriage state and now under federal law they are married.

Maybe the state in question will be able to decline to recognize the marriage, I don't know. But federal law I presume will apply to benefits, federal taxation, immigration, etc.

I thought DOMA was just about spousal benefits for federal employees, not recognition of same sex marriage everywhere.  I could easily be wrong though, as I'm clearly the dumbest person in this thread.

ulmont: I was asking about the the DOMA decision.  If no one opposed the lower court decision, why did it go up?

[The Minsky Moment]

Kleves, I thought that in the DOMA case since the Obama DOJ declined to defend DOMA or contest the ruling the House hired a former Solicitor General to defend the case on behalf of the House of Representatives, and unlike private citizens in the Prop 8 case the House did have valid standing to defend a law the White House declined to defend.

That's more-or-less what the Court ruled today. I don't think it was a sure thing that the Court would allow amici curiae (i.e. outside groups) to carry the adversarial burden when the parties themselves were in agreement about that they would like to see happen.

It is a bit dicey because the injury that creates the controversy involves a taxpayer vs. the fisc and the House as an institution has no clear interest in that controversy.  I can see the argument for no standing.

Scalia's bloated rhetoric is a bit much to take on this though.  Yes he writes well but he seems to have lost the thread here in his eagerness to stike a pose of dignified restraint.  His ringing declaration that "we have no power under theConstitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation" sit uncomfortably not only with his dissent in last years ACA case counseling "careful scrutiny" of Congressional invocations of the commerce power but his rather bizarre warning later in Windsor dissent itself of "the power of the most dangerous branch: the '"legislative department," which by its nature "draws all power into its impetuous vortex.""  His notion that the majority's fine distinction between the jurisdictional requirements of Art III standing and prudential standing rules somehow represents a massive power grab by an imperious self-aggrandizing court is absurd; it's like someone trying to write a court opinion in the style of a Martinus languish rant.

[garbon]

isn't it essentially 50 states now? Okay, technically not, but what really matters is federal law. All a couple has to do is get a plane ticket to a same sex marriage state and now under federal law they are married.

Maybe the state in question will be able to decline to recognize the marriage, I don't know. But federal law I presume will apply to benefits, federal taxation, immigration, etc.

I thought DOMA was just about spousal benefits for federal employees, not recognition of same sex marriage everywhere.  I could easily be wrong though, as I'm clearly the dumbest person in this thread.

Section 3. Definition of marriage
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

[The Minsky Moment]

Another thing: Scalia's strict interpretation of the Case and Controversy requirement sits uneasily with his originalism.  Scalia cites to the famous John Jay letter of 1793 declining to opine on a treaty interpretation; however, as discussed in another thread, this is a common misreading of the letter, which did not reject the notion of advisory opinions generally.  In fact, the early Supreme Court, in keeping with long-standing English practice, gave advisory opinions on a number of matters.  The notion of the case and controversy clause as a firm jurisdictional limit did not arise until an opinion by Roger Taney (of Dred Scott infamy) that was never actually issued but published posthumously in the late 19th century.  The doctrine was not formally stated and established until the Muskrat case in 1911.

[ulmont]

I thought DOMA was just about spousal benefits for federal employees, not recognition of same sex marriage everywhere.  I could easily be wrong though, as I'm clearly the dumbest person in this thread.

DOMA went up on the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses.  The decision applies generally to any federal recognition of a marriage recognized in...at least the state a person resides in, with a lot of related questions left to be decided.

ulmont: I was asking about the the DOMA decision.  If no one opposed the lower court decision, why did it go up?

"Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group" of the House of Representatives moved to intervene.  The DOJ and BLAG both appealed, although DOJ was just looking for DOMA to be struck down by a higher court.  The Supreme Court said "close enough for standing purposes."

[merithyn]

Co-worker is organzing a prayer circle in protest of DOMA being struck down. She's doing it quietly via email, but I still know it's happening. At least she was smart enough not to include me in the email request.

[CountDeMoney]

Co-worker is organzing a prayer circle in protest of DOMA being struck down. She's doing it quietly via email, but I still know it's happening. At least she was smart enough not to include me in the email request.

Forward it to Human Resources as an FYI.

[merithyn]

Co-worker is organzing a prayer circle in protest of DOMA being struck down. She's doing it quietly via email, but I still know it's happening. At least she was smart enough not to include me in the email request.

Forward it to Human Resources as an FYI.

Nah. She's in her late 70s. If anyone is going to upset over this kind of change, it's going to be her. Besides, she didn't send the request to me, so I have nothing to forward.

[Caliga]

Co-worker is organzing a prayer circle in protest of DOMA being struck down. She's doing it quietly via email, but I still know it's happening. At least she was smart enough not to include me in the email request.

What would that achieve?  If their prayers are answered, Jeebus is going to blow up Washington DC with lightning bolts or something?

[CountDeMoney]

Nah. She's in her late 70s. If anyone is going to upset over this kind of change, it's going to be her. Besides, she didn't send the request to me, so I have nothing to forward.

Fuck that shit.  No prayer in school, no prayer in the workplace.  HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT

[garbon]

Nah. She's in her late 70s. If anyone is going to upset over this kind of change, it's going to be her. Besides, she didn't send the request to me, so I have nothing to forward.

Fuck that shit.  No prayer in school, no prayer in the workplace.  HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT

Old age is not an excuse!

[merithyn]

Co-worker is organzing a prayer circle in protest of DOMA being struck down. She's doing it quietly via email, but I still know it's happening. At least she was smart enough not to include me in the email request.

What would that achieve?  If their prayers are answered, Jeebus is going to blow up Washington DC with lightning bolts or something?

No clue. Maybe that the judges will change their minds? Who knows.

I'm just waiting on someone else to say something.... They will. It's not a question of if but when.

[Caliga]

I hate old people.  Get your nose out of other peoples' business, grandma.

[merithyn]

I hate old people.  Get your nose out of other peoples' business, grandma.

Heh. Around here, it will be equally young and old praying.

[Caliga]

Same here probably.

That said, I'm friended with tons of local Baptists on FB and they're at least smart enough to not make bigoted posts, and a few of them have made posts in the past about how they may not agree with it, but it doesn't give them the right to stop others from doing it.

These posts typically end with "hate the sin, love the sinner" crap though.