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
In reply to the discussion: What just happened re: DOMA [View all]morningfog
(18,115 posts)48. Here are a few points from NYT:
The ruling makes clear that married gay couples living in states that recognize their unions will immediately gain access to more than 1,000 federal benefits, like Social Security and family leave rights. Less certain is how couples living in the remaining 37 states will fare.
The murkiness exists because federal agencies generally defer to the states to determine a couples marital status. Some agencies look to the laws in the state in which a couple now live, for instance, while others look to those in the state in which the couple were married.
Unless the administration changes its practices and rules and in a couple of cases, unless the law changes then couples residing in a nonmarriage-equality state may not be recognized for some federal programs, said Brian Moulton, legal director at the Human Rights Campaign. Now that we have an opinion out, we will be anxiously awaiting what the administration will say about this and urging them to ensure that all married couples, regardless of where they live, are fully recognized.
White House officials said that they had already begun analyzing the hundreds of relevant laws and statutes at issue and were working with the Justice Department to make benefits available as swiftly as possible.
But even if the administration were to apply the ruling broadly, gay married couples would still not be on entirely even ground with their heterosexual peers. Until other states approve the unions, couples will still need to travel to one of 13 states or the District of Columbia to get married. And they will still need to deal with a patchwork of state laws that could make it difficult to get a divorce or establish legal ties to their children.
The murkiness exists because federal agencies generally defer to the states to determine a couples marital status. Some agencies look to the laws in the state in which a couple now live, for instance, while others look to those in the state in which the couple were married.
Unless the administration changes its practices and rules and in a couple of cases, unless the law changes then couples residing in a nonmarriage-equality state may not be recognized for some federal programs, said Brian Moulton, legal director at the Human Rights Campaign. Now that we have an opinion out, we will be anxiously awaiting what the administration will say about this and urging them to ensure that all married couples, regardless of where they live, are fully recognized.
White House officials said that they had already begun analyzing the hundreds of relevant laws and statutes at issue and were working with the Justice Department to make benefits available as swiftly as possible.
But even if the administration were to apply the ruling broadly, gay married couples would still not be on entirely even ground with their heterosexual peers. Until other states approve the unions, couples will still need to travel to one of 13 states or the District of Columbia to get married. And they will still need to deal with a patchwork of state laws that could make it difficult to get a divorce or establish legal ties to their children.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/27/your-money/how-the-supreme-court-ruling-will-affect-same-sex-spouses.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
So, it seems that it will, until the Administration clarifies, depend on the federal agency. Those agencies that look to the state where they were married will carry across state lines. Those that look to residency will need to be changed by the executive or possibly by Congress.
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:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations