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
 

morningfog

(18,115 posts)
48. Here are a few points from NYT:
Wed Jun 26, 2013, 09:47 PM
Jun 2013
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 couple’s 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.

Recommendations

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

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
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»What just happened re: DO...»Reply #48