No federal marriage rights are granted to ANY gay couple.

[cali]

Gay marriage in MA and CT does not confer federal marriage rights. They're seem to be any number of people on DU who don't understand this.

And just a word about separate but equal. Even if a state under civil unions actually grants every single right and responsibility of straight marriage to gay and lesbian couples, it's still not equal because the act of separating people in and of itself is discriminatory.

Oh, and one more thing. Let's work on getting DOMA repealed.

[ourbluenation]

1. thank you for saying this. Until the feds recognizes gay unions, gays are cut off from fed bene's

imagine the bittersweetness of being gay in a state w civil unions or gay marriage, but who's life partner is a non-american.

[gollygee]

2. Good call

Oh, and one more thing. Let's work on getting DOMA repealed.

Yeah! How can that happen?

[cali]

3. I'm not sure, but I did email my rep and senators asking them to

introduce such legislation. They're all liberals and Leahy voted against it.

[Rockholm]

4. It is rather interesting filing my taxes.

Since I am married and gay, I check "Married, filing separately" for Massachusetts (we save money that way) and we check "single" on our federal ones. We are lying, but in the federal government's eyes, we are nothing more than roommates......after 13 years. PATHETIC.

[Pab Sungenis]

9. We don't have that option here in New Jersey.

We have to do four separate tax returns under New Jersey law. Both our "single" Federal returns, a theoretical "married, filing jointly" federal return, and our joint state return. If we chose to file "Married, filing separately" under NJ law, we'd need to do FIVE separate returns. It's ludicrous.

[Rockholm]

10. Ah, ain't seperate but equal grand?

Move to Massachusetts!

[Pab Sungenis]

20. No way.

They're all a bunch of LIBRULLS up there.
:sarcasm:

Seriously, my husband's family fought to escape Massachusetts, so why would I go back?

[QC]

5. Proud to be first rec. n/t

[GodlessBiker]

6. Has DOMA ever been challenged? Can the feds treat some marriages more equally than others?

[cali]

7. That's a really great question. Off to research it now.

[cali]

8. Lots of challenges to DOMA, mixed results but no case has made it

to the SCOTUS as far as I can determine.

[JVS]

12. Someone told me in another thread that activists are trying to hold off the big lawsuits on Doma...

until the position of the court is known to be favorable.

[GodlessBiker]

15. I found this October 2008 post on a tax blog regarding a challenge that has just begun...

Charles Merrill, cousin of the founder of Merrill Lynch, has filed a challenge in the US Tax Court against the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Merrill is arguing that the Tax Code is discriminatory under the First Amendment Establishment Clause of the US Constitution since same sex couples are denied the same benefits as straight married couples.

Merrill knows a little something about both. Merrill was previously married to the late Evangeline Johnson, the Johnson & Johnson heiress; they were married from 1975 until her death in 1989. Now, Merrill is legally married to Kevin Boyle in the state of California; that marriage is not recognized by the federal government.

Merrill has said:

Marriage is a Federal issue for all citizens, not a state or religious one.

Merrill’s argument is basically two-fold:

1, that the federal definition of marriage is discriminatory and based on religion; and

2, federal tax benefits for married persons should not be limited to married couples as defined by DOMA.

His first argument has merit in that proponents of DOMA argue that “Marriage is only a union between one man and one woman under God.” In fact, the majority of those who support DOMA do so on religious grounds. DOMA, and similar proposals like California’s Proposition 8, have the backing of such religious organizations as the Catholic Church, LDS and Southern Baptists.

Merrill counts 1,138 federal benefits for married heterosexual couples but not allowed for homosexual couples. He claims that this violates the idea of a Constitutional guarantee of “Equality of All.”

It’s a gutsy argument. And one that someone as well-positioned financially as Merrill appears to be can afford to make. Any thoughts on what will happen?

[Ioo]

23. NPS Last week - Dems have numbers to overturn DOMA in congress.

[deepthought42]

11. I did not know this...

thanks. :hi:

[Starry Messenger]

13. Thank you.

I think posts like this help create awareness. K&r

[Jankyn]

14. In general, the Court...

...tends not to rule on "controversial" matters until there's a lot of consensus in the state precedents (see, for instance, Loving v. Virginia, which the Supreme Court ruled on in 1967, but the same issues had been decided in California by Perez in 1948).

Some folks think that the reason Roe has become such a political and cultural football is because the Court took the case before a clear legal consensus had emerged from the states.

The legal thinking runs like this (as this educated layperson understands it): Let the individual states reach a kind of "critical mass," with a body of legal argument, before taking it to the U.S. Supreme Court.

There's also a very good argument for waiting until there's a more reasonable court make-up. Seriously, can you imagine Scalia-Thomas-Alito-Roberts getting behind an equal protection argument for marriage equality? Not bloody likely. So there needs to be a firm majority of libertarian-leaning justices on the court.

MA & CT are in good shape, and the CA Supreme Court is quite likely to throw out Prop 8 on the grounds that the state constitution cannot be revised to remove the rights of a minority by a simple majority vote. That will give us three states will full marriage rights, and more to come. The liberal northeast and libertarian-leaning West will, over the next few years, follow suit (especially as people become acculturated to the idea of civil marriage being fully separated from religious or sacramental marriage without the "societal breakdown" they've been threatened about). Eventually, a legal consensus will begin to emerge, and then it's time to go to the Supreme Court.

Going to the court too soon is a bad idea, and a lot of people need to be cautioned about it. These cases are generally chosen quite carefully to address a particular legal issue--it's not just happenstance that particular cases, such as Roe or Loving, get to the court.

Meanwhile, repealing DOMA is a good idea. Write your congressional reps and senators!

[AntiFascist]

26. Excellent post, and I'm glad that there are people like you who know what you're talking about...

What we need to do is get behind the CA Supreme Court ruling because never before have gays and lesbians been given a suspect classification, meaning that they are a protected minority. This ruling can be used in future cases, and can likely be used to overturn DOMA when other states begin to acknowledge this together with the ruling that marriage is a Fundamental Right.

What we need to do now is demonstrate the strength of the CA marriage ruling by having Prop 8 overturned.

[CatholicEdHead]

16. It should be repealed but on a longer timeframe

Otherwise there may be a fair amount of backlash which could make the 2010 Congressional election interesting. The proper stage needs to be presented to the public or the wingnuts will have a field day.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

30. Yeah...just like the gays cost us the 2006 election

And, I'm glad Dr. King didn't feel the same way as you, because we wouldn't have President Elect Obama.

[wroberts189]

17. In the end ..GAYS WILL WIN ..heard it here first :)

[baby_mouse]

22. There isn't an "end".

Politics doesn't "end".

There will always be homophobia.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. What is a federal marriage right?

Does it have to do with filing federal taxes?

[donco6]

27. You're married no matter where you live.

Currently, if I marry in CT, my marriage is not recognized under the interstate commerce clause as straight marriages are. Which is obviously discriminatory.

[REACTIVATED IN CT]

29. Yes, taxes and benefits, too

A gay employee can cover his/her partner/spouse on company medical insurance, but can't pay for the cost pre-tax for Federal income tax. Plus, the fair market value of the coverage is taxable for Federal income tax purposes. It has to be added to the employee's W2. In CT, that could be $5000 a year of additional taxable income.

[greeneyedboy]

19. yes, even legally married couples can't get green cards etc.

inheriting Social Security benefits, pensions, and surviving spouse workers' comp benefits

helping your spouse live in the United States if s/he's a foreign national

tax benefits (esp. for families with kids)

and 1100 or so other federal benefits are now explicitly denied to gay and lesbian couples, even those who are legally married in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and California* or have "equal" DPs or civil unions in other states per the Defense of Marriage Act, which Obama has promised to repeal.

[nichomachus]

21. Exactly

Having civil unions for gays and marriage for straights is no different than having one water cooler for whites and another one for blacks. No difference at all. After all, water is water -- what difference does it make where you get it?

[LeftishBrit]

24. That is really sobering.

So even if a gay couple are married in Massachusetts, it wouldn't be recognized in another state?

[AntiFascist]

28. That's not entirely true...

New York recognizes out of state gay marriages, eventhough gay marriages are not allowed to be performed within NY. Ironically, my certified (gay) marriage in California will still be valid in NY even if CA decides to no longer acknowledge it.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

31. Depends on the state

RI, CT, and NY would recognize it as a marriage. NJ would recognize it as a civil union. I'm not sure about the rest of the states.

[Pithlet]

25. Yes. DOMA has to get repealed.

That's paramount. It was a serious blow to equal rights when it was passed.