Comments on: Supreme timing, part 5: Why it’s better for DOMA to be heard at the Supreme Court before the Prop 8 trial http://equalityontrial.com/2012/06/15/supreme-timing-part-5-why-its-better-for-doma-to-be-heard-at-the-supreme-court-before-the-prop-8-trial/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=supreme-timing-part-5-why-its-better-for-doma-to-be-heard-at-the-supreme-court-before-the-prop-8-trial Thu, 23 May 2013 21:31:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1 By: Prop 8 Trial Tracker » What’s next for the marriage equality movement? http://equalityontrial.com/2012/06/15/supreme-timing-part-5-why-its-better-for-doma-to-be-heard-at-the-supreme-court-before-the-prop-8-trial/#comment-305353 Prop 8 Trial Tracker » What’s next for the marriage equality movement? Thu, 08 Nov 2012 22:56:33 +0000 http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/?p=18621#comment-305353 [...] series arguing why the Supreme Court should hear the DOMA cases before the Prop 8 case, I concluded with this look at the future of marriage equality advocacy: Marriage equality is already the law or [...]

]]> By: Larry http://equalityontrial.com/2012/06/15/supreme-timing-part-5-why-its-better-for-doma-to-be-heard-at-the-supreme-court-before-the-prop-8-trial/#comment-283729 Larry Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:25:47 +0000 http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/?p=18621#comment-283729 So Iowa would arrest me for a crime I committed in Nebraska? I'd think they wouldn't have jurisdiction.

Even more fun is if I marry a man in Iowa, then move to Wisconsin and marry a woman. Iowa can try and arrest me for marrying a woman in Wisconsin because I committed polygamy. Wisconsin can try and arrest me for marrying a man in Iowa because I entered a marriage elsewhere to avoid a Wisconsin law. So both states want to charge me with crimes I committed in other states. Federalism in action!

]]> By: Straight Dave http://equalityontrial.com/2012/06/15/supreme-timing-part-5-why-its-better-for-doma-to-be-heard-at-the-supreme-court-before-the-prop-8-trial/#comment-283726 Straight Dave Wed, 20 Jun 2012 15:58:12 +0000 http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/?p=18621#comment-283726 Sorry, actually the Fed's think you have one spouse (a woman), but only if you claim her….to the detriment of your hubby.. just…..so…..dumb….

]]> By: Straight Dave http://equalityontrial.com/2012/06/15/supreme-timing-part-5-why-its-better-for-doma-to-be-heard-at-the-supreme-court-before-the-prop-8-trial/#comment-283725 Straight Dave Wed, 20 Jun 2012 15:54:28 +0000 http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/?p=18621#comment-283725 I'm sure Neb would have no problem letting you get married, since you're "not" already. Afterwards, NE thinks you have one spouse (a woman), IA thinks you have 2 and might arrest you, but the Fed govt thinks you have none. Meanwhile, *you* think you have one spouse (a man!!), because you honestly know you had no business getting married a 2nd time. You had to effectively lie on your NE application.

That's why DOMA section 2 is not far behind, once we get the other issues out of the way.

A state's interest in polygamy is essentially spousal protection (or so I believe). Therefore, ignoring valid marriages they don't approve of enables a state to abdicate its spousal protection responsibilities. And that's good for whom…??

They really didn't think this through very well, did they?

]]> By: Larry http://equalityontrial.com/2012/06/15/supreme-timing-part-5-why-its-better-for-doma-to-be-heard-at-the-supreme-court-before-the-prop-8-trial/#comment-283719 Larry Wed, 20 Jun 2012 13:43:59 +0000 http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/?p=18621#comment-283719 Another hypothetical. Say I marry a man in Iowa. Then I head to Nebraska. Can I marry a woman there immediately or would that be polygamy? Or polygamy according to Iowa, but not Nebraska or the federal government. It's ridiculously complicated.

]]> By: John http://equalityontrial.com/2012/06/15/supreme-timing-part-5-why-its-better-for-doma-to-be-heard-at-the-supreme-court-before-the-prop-8-trial/#comment-283716 John Wed, 20 Jun 2012 12:07:29 +0000 http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/?p=18621#comment-283716 So if I travel through another state, I am still married according to the federal government. Okay. If I *move* to another state, then am I unmarried suddenly? So to get a divorce, all I would need to do is move to a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage and never move back to a state that does?

Somehow I think it's more complicated than that, especially once the federal government begins to recognize SSMs. And I have yet to see information that describes how this would work.

]]> By: Eric http://equalityontrial.com/2012/06/15/supreme-timing-part-5-why-its-better-for-doma-to-be-heard-at-the-supreme-court-before-the-prop-8-trial/#comment-283664 Eric Tue, 19 Jun 2012 15:43:45 +0000 http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/?p=18621#comment-283664 Why would it be any different than the way the current law works with regards to states recognizing each other's marriages? As for the IRS, everything I've seen is based on state of domicile,

]]> By: Eric http://equalityontrial.com/2012/06/15/supreme-timing-part-5-why-its-better-for-doma-to-be-heard-at-the-supreme-court-before-the-prop-8-trial/#comment-283663 Eric Tue, 19 Jun 2012 15:41:01 +0000 http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/?p=18621#comment-283663 Most "Christians" don't even learn the bible, let alone civics.

]]> By: Eric http://equalityontrial.com/2012/06/15/supreme-timing-part-5-why-its-better-for-doma-to-be-heard-at-the-supreme-court-before-the-prop-8-trial/#comment-283661 Eric Tue, 19 Jun 2012 15:39:21 +0000 http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/?p=18621#comment-283661 There are pleanty of provisions that deny equality to gays and lesbians that the CSC has left in place. One example is the case currently against CalPERS for excluding same-sex spouses and registered domestic partners from enrolling in their long term disability plan. Another is the state's refusal to allow spouses or registered domestic partners to be buried in veterans' cemeteries.

]]> By: Jamie http://equalityontrial.com/2012/06/15/supreme-timing-part-5-why-its-better-for-doma-to-be-heard-at-the-supreme-court-before-the-prop-8-trial/#comment-283571 Jamie Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:01:03 +0000 http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/?p=18621#comment-283571 The California Supreme Court said in their ruling that they would strike down any provision that denied rights to gays and lesbians and noted that Proposition 8 did no affect any rights, just a word. If DOMA is repealed then Proposition 8 suddenly withholds rights from gays and lesbians, and would be unconstitutional under existing CASC rulings.

]]>