If the SC turns down DOMA

[LiberalFighter]

and they use the argument that it should be left up to the states. That would leave states having different marriage definitions. And I think that is what I'm hearing might happen. Then I'm wondering how the federal govt can apply the tax code appropriately where it applies to the income tax? Will they accept the civil union ceremony in states that don't allow marriage and require those living in states that allow marriage to have the marriage license?

If they can't apply the tax code equally should they get rid of the deduction for married couples?

What happens to those that legally get married in a state that allows it but they move to a state that doesn't recognize it? Will there be challenges to the law in those states on that issue?

[FLyellowdog]

1. Please don't muddy the waters with legitimate questions.

It hurts my brain.

[BlueDemKev]

2. 16th Amendment

Interesting question. What federal benefits would be available to same-sex couples who were married in say, Iowa, but then move to Alabama. Would they still be able to file jointly when they submit their federal income tax returns?

My suspicion is that the laws of whatever state they reside in would prevail, meaning the IRS would say "well, if the state you live in doesn't recognize your marriage, you can't file jointly--sorry."

[avebury]

3. Income taxes are not the only impact on same

sex couples. It would also impact inheritance and death taxes, hospital visitation, spousal access to employer provided insurance, and so on.

I really wish that all the lawyer fighting for marriage equality would really focus on:

1. Tie the whole issue tightly to inter-racial marriage. I would have looks Clarence Thomas right in the eye and stated bluntly that, not that long ago, he and his wife would not have been allowed to get married.

2. The hypocrisy of the man and woman argument and procreation argument. Marriage as defined as between one man and one woman loses potency when you have people with multiple marriages and divorces. Men and women are married all the time who have no intention of ever having children. With invitro fertilization and adoption there is no reason why a same sex couple cannot have children.

3. Constitutional should not be based upon person beliefs but what is constitutional. Everybody deserves equal rights and protection.

4. The people you deny rights today can come back and beat the crap out of you legally when you are no longer in the majority and that day is coming.

[lunatica]

4. You know what they say about the devil and the details.

[Paul Alan]

5. My Guess what SCOTUS will do on the tax code.

I suspect the Court will throw it back to Congress to decide what to do with the tax code.

And of course the moral giants in the House will dabble over it interminably until the Administration takes the lead and clarifies the tax code.

[alcibiades_mystery]

6. The specific section of DOMA under dispute has to do with treating legally married people WITHIN

the state in which same-sex marriage is legal differently. There's no doubt the SC decision will open a can of worms, but technically, it can only affect that class of people. So, if you were married in Massachusetts but moved to Alabama, you're out of luck. If you were married in Massachusetts and moved to Iowa, I think you're still in luck. Ideally, you will have been married in Massachusetts and still live in Massachusetts.

The problem, as you rightly point out, is that the decision on federalist grounds immediately begs the question of equal protection (the question that DOMA sought to "solve" in the negative). The court won't solve that problem in the positive, precisely because it is making its decision on federalist grounds (i.e., the court won't 'force' Alabama to recognize Massachusetts marriages on equal protection grounds, because you can't get Kennedy on board except as a state's rights advocate). The fact that you're affirming that the federal government must recognize Massachusetts marriages (as a state matter) also means you're affirming that it cannot possibly ask Alabama to do the same (as a state matter). So, great if you're in Massachusetts, shitty if you're in Alabama, and we're back to the nub of the equal protection issue. If only we had one more justice who recognized the actual 14th amendment problem here.

[lunatica]

7. I wish there was some way to boycott States who are against marriage equality

They need to start paying the price for bigotry. Of course, I know gay people live in those States and it's another layer of unfairness to them. I just wish there was a price that bigots should pay.

[dsc]

8. Or try this one on for size

a bisexual guy lives in a border town on the New York, PA border. He marries a man in New York where it is legal, and a woman in PA where the first marriage isn't considered legal. He is now legally married to two people but not a bigamist.

[Sgent]

9. The current case

only deals with Section 3 of DOMA which regulates the federal benefits. Striking down section 3 will have no effect in states which do not allow for equality -- yet. That's a different court case for a different time.

Also, I don't know that a Section 2 challenge would be beneficial, although we'll have a better grasp on it after they rule on the current issue. It would be much worse if the considered and rejected a section 2 case in the long run than if they don't consider it at all.