Supreme Court Overturns Defense of Marriage Act 1073
12 U.S. states have adopted same-sex marriage over the past decade, and many other states have adopted legislation specifically intended to prevent same-sex marriages from being performed or recognized within their borders. The landscape has just changed on that front, though: the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which barred federal recognition of same-sex marriages, has been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court; here's the ruling itself. From the NBC News version of the story:
"The decision was 5-4, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy.
“'DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others,' the ruling said. 'The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity.'"
One major area this affects is tax law; that's one of the salient points in U.S. v. Windsor, the case that drove the court's conclusion. There's more on the story at many major news outlets, and at law-centric sources like SCOTUSblog. The Boston Globe is also live blogging various reactions.
Update: 06/26 16:58 GMT by T : In a separate decision, the court disappointed supporters of California's Proposition 8, a law passed by voter initiative, under which "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The court ruled that the private parties which had taken up the Prop 8 banner did not have standing to do so; as the story says, "The 5-4 decision avoids, for now, a sweeping conclusion on whether same-sex marriage is a constitutional "equal protection" right that would apply to all states."
Update: 06/26 16:58 GMT by T : In a separate decision, the court disappointed supporters of California's Proposition 8, a law passed by voter initiative, under which "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The court ruled that the private parties which had taken up the Prop 8 banner did not have standing to do so; as the story says, "The 5-4 decision avoids, for now, a sweeping conclusion on whether same-sex marriage is a constitutional "equal protection" right that would apply to all states."
Good ... (Score:5, Interesting)
You should no more be able to deny rights to people because of their sexuality than you should be able to deny the right of blacks to vote and hold property.
That Scalia dissented means he's not looking at the right parts of the Constitution but is just being selective.
Believing one group should be able to dictate the rights of another group makes you no better than the Taliban.
What now? (Score:5, Interesting)
Say you have a same-sex marriage in a state that recognizes it or a country that recognizes it. Now you move to Alabama. Are you unmarried? And can Alabama still discriminate against your marriage? Or does this just apply to the federal government?
Funny results reporting (Score:4, Interesting)
Just for the sake of shits and giggles, I took screenshots of the three big cable networks (CNN, Fox and MSNBC) about half an hour ago when the first notice came out. I wanted to see how each would report on the announcement.
As predicted, CNN and NBC had nice big, red banners claiming the Supreme Court had a ruling and results would be forthcoming.
Fox, on the other hand, had no notice except for a small box on the right side of their web site which, if you didn't know what to look for, you would have missed.
Now, half an hour later, the Fox headline rules the decision is a victory for gay marriage, NOT that the law was ruled unconstitutional.
So the next time someone whines about the liberal bias in the media, kindly remind them of the twisting of facts by the conservative media.
NOTE: I have a moderate leaning though I do have positions which some might consider on the far side of both political spectrums so this isn't about one or the other. Just the hypocrisy of those who claim bias.
"Right" and "Left" change places yet again (Score:5, Interesting)
The "Left" once again upholds limited central government and states' rights. The "Right" once again argues (unsuccessfully) for central planning taking a larger role for the "common good" at the expense of individual liberty and states' rights to govern and set their own policies.
Three cheers for the Left (i.e. conservatives) winning again!
Re:What now? (Score:4, Interesting)
If they recognize other marriages from that state, they should not be able to pick and choose.
Only section 3: Section 2 still stands. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Good ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Having said that, those "rights" you listed should not be tied to "love" they should be tied to household. If they are tied to household rather than love, everyone is treated equal, we dont have some groups fighting others over special treatment, it really is the best way to move past this stupid quarrel
Lawrence v. Texas (Score:5, Interesting)
And today is exactly ten years since SCOTUS issued its Lawrence v. Texas [wikipedia.org] ruling, another landmark case in getting the government out of people's bedrooms.
Re:What now? (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, NJ is one of the more oppressive states IRT drivers' licenses. For one, you have to be 16 to even get a permit. Second, you have to have it for six months AND be at least 17 before you can even take the test. Third, your observer while you're under permit can't just be a legal adult: they have to be 21 (age discrimination) and have been a licensed driver for at least three years (understandable). Fourth, even once you have a PROBATIONARY license, which you must have for a YEAR before you get a real one, you CAN'T have anyone except family in the car EVEN IF YOU ARE AN 18 YEAR OLD LEGAL ADULT (age discrimination again)-- don't know what the environmental lobby thinks of this obvious detriment to carpooling. Fifth, the state is fond of using the license as a carrot for everything; in other words, there are about 90 different things a young person could screw up with that could delay getting their license: drinking under 21, a miscellaneous juvenile incident, mouthed off to a cop, etc.
And people wonder why I moved to Pennsylvania 17 years ago.
Re:Good ... (Score:0, Interesting)
You're never going to get government out of all of the things that marriage gives benefits to.
- why not? USA federal government wasn't in any of these just a century ago.
Rights are given by the government.
- wrong, rights are imposed upon government by only giving government the authority to deal with certain restrained situations (in theory of-course, not in practice, not after the mob declares that its entitlements to subsidies that impose obligations upon minority of productive people are more important than individual rights of every person).
A right is a default LIMIT on government power against an individual, a right is only a meaningful concept in the context of an individual interacting with a government.
An individual has all the rights and government has authority to deny an individual some of these rights under certain conditions. The government only exists with the consent of the governed (until the collective gives the government enough leeway to subjugate and subvert the Constitution and destroy the chains that bind the hands of the politicians).
OTOH between 2 individuals or an individual and a business (which is also an individual, until the government sticks its nose into that business) there is no concept of 'rights', there is only a concept of "don't do to others what you don't want to be done to you", and so that's what the criminal code is basically all about, not any 'right' but just a reflective response to an act that we do not want to be repeated onto us. The reason why a 'right' is different is because with a government (especially a 'democratic' one) there is nobody to actually take revenge against, there is nothing you can do to punish government in case it does to you what it shouldn't, so all we can do is demand that government cannot do onto us those things a priori.
Re:Good ... (Score:4, Interesting)
And yet it does take them away.
I'd say that makes them granted.
Re:Potayto/potatoh (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Good ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Good ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Good ... (Score:3, Interesting)
I read a book from the 1960s once that discussed this in the context of the English Parliament.
The inability to permanently give up your freedom (as in the old question as to whether you can sell yourself into slavery) should not be interpreted as a paternalistic rule, but rather as the essence of inalienability. You simply cannot give up a right and expect government enfforcement of stripping that right.
You could contract to a slavelike relationship, but if you violated it, it would be a civil contractual violation. Government would have no authority to gather you up and send you back.
Re:Good ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Except dogs can't enter into legally binding contracts. I'd say let's just jump to letting consenting adults enact whatever household contract they want to and have any government benefits be for a "household" not a "married couple".
Re:Good ... (Score:5, Interesting)
You realize that the main decision involved a law called "The Defense of Marriage Act" which disallowed same-sex "civil unions" from receiving the same benefits as "traditional" marriage, right? This was not about the word "marriage" or who gets to decide what it means. This was about exactly the benefits you are talking about. Social conservatives may be crazy but they are not dumb. They know that marriage as it relates to the government is inextricably tied to the benefits it grants, and that halting the very kind of legal recognition you outline is far more important to their goal of demonizing and marginalizing same-sex relationships than the word chosen to define these benefits. Your "simple workaround" implies that the fight to decide exactly who gets the benefits of civil unions/marriage has nothing to do with bigotry. I am sorry to say that such notions are woefully naive.
Re:Good ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Hmm. Why shouldn't felons have voting rights? If you're putting so many people behind bars that their (in)ability to exercise their political preferences at the polling booth could change the outcome, politics are already involved, and if you're not, then such denial is meaningless and arbitrary and thus a sign of bad legislation (or unhealthy ambitions).
Re:Good ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Except if you actually analyze what the tax brackets are, it's not really a tax break. And in a lot of cases it's a tax PENALTY.
Let's do a couple basic examples:
Couple 1: Wife earns $40,000 a year. Husband earns $40,000 a year. If they weren't married and had to file separately, they would each pay $5,928.75 in taxes on their individually filed tax returns. This is a total of $11,857.50. If they were married, their $80,000 of joint income would yield a total tax of $11,857.50 for their jointly filed tax return.
Couple 2: Wife earns nothing, stay at home spouse. Husband earns $80,000 a year. If they weren't married and had to file separately, the wife would pay $0 in taxes. The husband would pay $15,928.75 in taxes. This is a total of $15,928.75 in taxes. If they were married, their $80,000 of joint income would yield a total tax of $11,857.50 for their jointly filed tax return.
Couple 3: Husband works a part time job to help out around the house, earns $25,000 a year. Wife earns $55,000 a year. If they weren't married and had to file separately, the wife would pay $9,678.75 in taxes. The husband would pay $3,303.75 in taxes. This is a total of $12,982.50 in taxes. If they were married, their $80,000 of joint income would yield a total tax of $11,857.50 for their jointly filed tax return.
Couple 4: Wife and husband both earn $450,000 a year... They're both CEOs! If they weren't married and had to file separately, they would each pay $125,268.50 in taxes on their individually filed tax returns. This is a total of $250,537.00. If they were married, their $900,000 of joint income would yield a total tax of $265,268.50.
(Source, US tax brackets for 2013 on earned income, and some basic excel skills)
So let's analyze...
Couple 1, it makes absolutely no difference whether they are married are not. They will each pay the same tax no matter what.
Couple 2, They clearly get a benefit in their taxes from filing jointly. However, they are earning the same amount of money as couple 1 and paying the same amount in taxes as couple 1, IF they are married. They would pay MORE if they weren't married.
Couple 3, Pretty much the same as couple 2, however, the benefit to filing jointly isn't as great.
Couple 4, They actually get a tax PENALTY because they are married. If they weren't married, they would pay a combined tax of $250,537. But by getting married, they pay a combined tax of $265.268.50. It's almost a $15,000 penalty!
The above examples do assume there are no deductions and other such tax tricks that would lower your overall taxable income.
The basic idea behind filing jointly when you're married is that you are able to pool your tax brackets. In general, it will make zero difference if you are both earning relatively equal pay. However, if one person is earning significantly more (or is earning ALL of the income), then you can divide all of the income you earn equally between both of your two tax brackets. The idea being is that it's not the husband's money or the wife's money... it's BOTH of their money, regardless of who actually earned it.
That logic does break down when you start to get in to the higher tax brackets. If you earn gobs of money each year, then you can actually pay higher taxes by getting married.