Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, federal appeals court rules

[DontSayBanana]

Also, Scip, I'm kinda surprised you pulled that argument out, since DOMA is a prime example of what full faith and credit was supposed to prevent, e.g. the federal government violating state jurisdiction by imposing an arbitrary definition that upholds some states' laws, while invalidating others.

[grumbler]

The thing is, though, that while it would seem that FF&C would require a marriage performed legally in one state to be recognized by all other states, in practice that hasn't been the case, at least to my understanding.  For example, until the Supreme Court declared all state laws banning interracial marriage unconstitutional, states where they were illegal didn't recognize such marriages even if performed in states where they were legal, and the federal government never forced them to do so, as best as I can tell.  I have no idea how the feds handled survivors' benefits from such marriages.

My understanding from reading commentary on the Loving case that overturned the anti-miscegenation laws nationwide, Virginia would have had to recognize the marriage had the couple not previously been residents of Virginia and thus liable to the part of the law which forbad the evasion of the law by getting married in another state.  I'm not sure how correct my understanding is, though; all those racial laws were hard to follow because of the preposterousness of attempts to try to define race in legal terms.

Maybe one of our legal experts can explain how the Federal government would have handled the survivor's benefits under the laws of the time.

[Fireblade]

Can we all just agree that this "controversy" is fucking stupid?

Christ. Let fags get married already, it's not that big a deal.

[Martinus]

Surprised noone yet made the "Let fags marry so they can be miserable like everyone else" joke. It's the hack cliche in gay marriage debates.

[Sheilbh]

The problem is how to apply that principle in regards to things such as federal survivor's pensions.  Suppose a couple is legally married under the laws of state A.  Ok, by the principle you suggest, the federal government recognizes that marriage, and if one of the two should die, the other would be eligible for survivor's benefits (assuming that all other requirements are also met).  But suppose the couple had moved to state B, where there marriage is not recognized.  Would the survivor still be eligible for a federal pension?  How about if the survivor moved to state B after the death of the other partner?

I don't see that as an issue though.  That's a relationship between individuals and the Federal government.  The Federal government isn't requiring state B to recognise it or to do anything.  They're recognising it because it was legal in state A and they're paying the benefits.

Edit: Obviously I'm enormously ignorant of this, though I find it interesting.  So don't come at me assuming that I've any knowledge on this whatsoever.

[dps]

The problem is how to apply that principle in regards to things such as federal survivor's pensions.  Suppose a couple is legally married under the laws of state A.  Ok, by the principle you suggest, the federal government recognizes that marriage, and if one of the two should die, the other would be eligible for survivor's benefits (assuming that all other requirements are also met).  But suppose the couple had moved to state B, where there marriage is not recognized.  Would the survivor still be eligible for a federal pension?  How about if the survivor moved to state B after the death of the other partner?

I don't see that as an issue though.  That's a relationship between individuals and the Federal government.  The Federal government isn't requiring state B to recognise it or to do anything.  They're recognising it because it was legal in state A and they're paying the benefits.

Edit: Obviously I'm enormously ignorant of this, though I find it interesting.  So don't come at me assuming that I've any knowledge on this whatsoever.

Let me try to explain this.  Sure, on one level, whether a surviving spouse is eligible for SS survivor benefits is an issue between that individual and the feds, but the feds make that eligibility hinge on whether or not the couple was legally married--and marriage laws are a matter of state, not federal law.  See the problem?

[sbr]

It shouldn't matter as long as the marriage was legal in the state where they were married.

[grumbler]

It shouldn't matter as long as the marriage was legal in the state where they were married.

But, if they move to a state which doesn't recognize the marriage, are they still married?

In the 1948 Perez v Sharp (http://www.multiracial.com/government/perez-v-sharp.html) it notes that

Civil Code, section 69, implements Civil Code, section 60, which provides: "All marriages of white persons with negroes, Mongolians, members of the Malay race, or mulattoes are illegal and void."

Presumably that means that, in California's eyes, the marriage did not exist.  Were couples of different "races" who married and then move to California before 1948 still married?   

[The Brain]

Legal status depends on local law????!!!????

[grumbler]

Legal status depends on local law????!!!????

The Full faith and Credit clause seems to say otherwise, but this is open to question in the US.

[Ideologue]

What's a Malay race?  Or a "Mongolian," specifically people from the People's Republic of Mongolia?

[grumbler]

What's a Malay race?  Or a "Mongolian," specifically people from the People's Republic of Mongolia?

Like all other racial constructs, these are probably "I can't define a member of the (x) race, but I know one when I see him."

[Sheilbh]

Let me try to explain this.  Sure, on one level, whether a surviving spouse is eligible for SS survivor benefits is an issue between that individual and the feds, but the feds make that eligibility hinge on whether or not the couple was legally married--and marriage laws are a matter of state, not federal law.  See the problem?

Yeah I get that.  But why doesn't the Feds recognise whatever the states determine is marriage?  This isn't a case of state A trying to force state B to recognise gay marriage which would be what I understand is the issue of 'full faith and credit'. 

I don't get why they need a definition when the problem isn't between different state laws about marriage, but the relationship between the individual and the Federal government.  Surely they only need a 'definition' of marriage if there's a conflict between two states' definitions of marriage?  If the issue is Federal benefits then I don't see why the Feds don't follow the respective states.

[Admiral Yi]

why doesn't the Feds

[grumbler]

Yeah I get that.  But why doesn't the Feds recognise whatever the states determine is marriage?  This isn't a case of state A trying to force state B to recognise gay marriage which would be what I understand is the issue of 'full faith and credit'. 

State A isn't trying to "force" state B to recognize gay marriage; the Constitution says that state B must recognize a marriage performed in state A, even if the law in state B doesn't allow that marriage.  It is similar to other legal determinations; a person sentenced to prison for marajuana possession in Arizona cannot flee to California and claim an exception to the Arizona sentence because California laws don't provide for prison sentences for marijuana possession [this is just an example; I don't know the relevant laws].

I don't get why they need a definition when the problem isn't between different state laws about marriage, but the relationship between the individual and the Federal government.  Surely they only need a 'definition' of marriage if there's a conflict between two states' definitions of marriage?  If the issue is Federal benefits then I don't see why the Feds don't follow the respective states.

Two seperate issues:
(1) Politics.  The Federal government may not have the power to create laws like DUMA, but politicians can run on the fact that they voted for it, even if some activist court strikes it down.
(2) Which state laws would apply?  The laws where the couple were married, or the laws where the surviving spouse lives?  FF&C was the mechanism for getting around this, so that the Feds don't need to even consider the question; a legal status from one state carries to them all.