Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

morningfog

(18,115 posts)

32. I think, ultimately, the answers would be the same.

Reply to jberryhill (Reply #29)

Wed Jun 26, 2013, 01:37 PM

Jun 2013

The court will have to address the tourism marriage question. But, the dominoes are falling.

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