General Discussion

morningfog

(18,115 posts)

12. No, it does not say state denial of same sex marriages is discriminatory.

Wed Jun 26, 2013, 12:51 PM

Jun 2013

My point is that is the only logical conclusion when the Court does address that question. Today's opinion made clear that the test for such laws would require finding them unconstitutional. The court said it will use a "careful consideration" to look for animus in "unusually discriminatory" statutes. There is no way the anti-marriage equality amendments and statutes will pass that test, because DOMA's just failed.

The next step will be the Court finding such laws unconstitutional, an easy step.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

49 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

What just happened re: DOMA [View all] Triana Jun 2013 OP

It also opens the door to some future litigation. morningfog Jun 2013 #1

Really? I understand it differently. yardwork Jun 2013 #2

That is what I am hoping it means, but I am not sure. The Link Jun 2013 #3

That is what it means, you are correct. The challenge I see coming morningfog Jun 2013 #8

I agree - they certainly laid the groundwork Ms. Toad Jun 2013 #11

The federal benefits will travel with the legally married couples. morningfog Jun 2013 #13

Yes. This is how I see it too. nt Lex Jun 2013 #15

That is not what the decision said. Ms. Toad Jun 2013 #16

I don't read it that narrowly. Maybe you can point me to a quote. morningfog Jun 2013 #18

Here's a quick cut - dont' have time to pare it down Ms. Toad Jun 2013 #41

All the language goes to any marriage morningfog Jun 2013 #43

That is really not clear. Ms. Toad Jun 2013 #44

Here are a few points from NYT: morningfog Jun 2013 #48

The distinction between residence and marriage is really a distinction without a difference Ms. Toad Jun 2013 #49

That's not entirely clear jberryhill Jun 2013 #24

SCOTUSBlog supports my reading of it: morningfog Jun 2013 #38

We'll see. Ms. Toad Jun 2013 #40

Not yet. Unfortunately. bunnies Jun 2013 #19

Hmm. morningfog Jun 2013 #20

The problem is the first mention of "a State" jberryhill Jun 2013 #26

Yeah, I think it is open. morningfog Jun 2013 #31

Well... jberryhill Jun 2013 #34

Looks like the all states will be on the hook for federal benefits any legally recognized marriages. morningfog Jun 2013 #39

I know. Seems contradictory. bunnies Jun 2013 #28

I think that the federal benefits will travel with the couples. morningfog Jun 2013 #36

Good. bunnies Jun 2013 #37

Two scenarios jberryhill Jun 2013 #29

I think, ultimately, the answers would be the same. morningfog Jun 2013 #32

I agree that this will open avenues for lawsuits yardwork Jun 2013 #23

Exactly justiceischeap Jun 2013 #4

This happens all the time with first cousins jberryhill Jun 2013 #6

That is not analagous. Ms. Toad Jun 2013 #14

...which is why the next challenge will have to address Section 2 jberryhill Jun 2013 #17

We have a winner here! n/t Ms. Toad Jun 2013 #42

The expected test case... Chan790 Jun 2013 #5

What is the "federally granted right" in that sentence? jberryhill Jun 2013 #7

Federal benefits to same sex couples. morningfog Jun 2013 #9

I'll have to read it more closely jberryhill Jun 2013 #10

No, it does not say state denial of same sex marriages is discriminatory. morningfog Jun 2013 #12

That is in relation, though to "a class the state has chosen to protect" jberryhill Jun 2013 #21

Excuse my ignorance........ truegrit44 Jun 2013 #22

They will now have federal rights yardwork Jun 2013 #25

Was that question actually answered here? jberryhill Jun 2013 #30

Looks like I was wrong. yardwork Jun 2013 #45

So only as far as say taxes? truegrit44 Jun 2013 #33

I was wrong. yardwork Jun 2013 #46

Ok, guess I should have read more posts truegrit44 Jun 2013 #35

Yeah. I'm still a non-person. yardwork Jun 2013 #47

Kick! Rec! Love! Hekate Jun 2013 #27