Leave a Comment Sagesse
Equality news round-up: The Advocate endorses President Obama, and more
July 6, 2012
By Scottie Thomaston
- For law-geeks, I came across this in the Stanford Law Review yesterday: BEYOND DOMA: CHOICE OF STATE LAW IN FEDERAL STATUTES
- ABC News profiles Chad Griffin, formerly of AFER (fighting Prop 8 in court); he is now heading up the Human Rights Campaign.
- The Advocate has endorsed a presidential candidate for the first time in decades. They have announced their support of President Obama.
- Yesterday a gay couple in Dallas was arrested in a protest after trying to obtain a marriage license.
- SCOTUSBlog discusses Baker v. Nelson, the 1972 case that continues to be held up as a defense of DOMA.
- Newsday suggests that defending DOMA is folly.
- An attempt to overturn New York’s marriage equality law has failed in state appeals court. The court ruled that the open meetings law in the state was not violated.
Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
20 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Sagesse | July 6, 2012 at 1:17 pm
@
2.
415kathleenk | July 6, 2012 at 1:36 pm
I just read the SCOTUS blog discussion of Baker v. Nelson and i am not enough of a law geek to fully understand it. Can one of our legal eagles put Mr. Denniston's thesis in plainer English please.
3.
Scottie Thomaston | July 6, 2012 at 1:49 pm
He's just explaining that BLAG is using it to defend DOMA and the Prop 8 proponents are using it to defend Prop 8.
Baker v. Nelson was a 1972 case where a gay couple in Minnesota tried to get married but state law suggested marriage is between a man and a woman. It got appealed from the state Supreme Court to the US Supreme Court where they dismissed it for want of a substantial federal question.
Just means that the case involves a right to marry, but DOMA doesn't, since those challenges involve couples who are already legally married.
Denniston doesn't reach any conclusions in his piece, just writes about the ways in which Baker is being used in gay rights cases.
4.
sfbob | July 6, 2012 at 2:31 pm
The best and worst thing about the Stanford Law Review article is the reminder that the end of DOMA, while solving some problems, will create others, while point to legal conflicts of long standing which have not yet been resolved satisfactorily. It's tough to slog through and I didn't really finish it (it's pretty much beyond this non-lawyer) but I think the point is pretty clear that no matter what happens with DOMA, there will plenty left of work left until we have some sort of far-reaching decision on marriage equality, well beyond what we're likely to see with the DOMA cases…and any decision short of one equivalent to Loving vs Virginia is likely to leave plenty of loose ends to be resolved.
5.
Steve | July 6, 2012 at 2:49 pm
There are is a really troublesome point in there I wasn't aware of. Apparently current law already states that for Social Security and Veteran's benefits, what counts is the state of domicile. So people in anti-gay states still wouldn't receive those benefits for their spouses when DOMA is gone.
Overall it seems like a typical ivory tower opinion that doesn't care one iota about reality or people's lives. He suggests that while Congress should define marriage based on the state of celebration (as the Respect of Marriage Act does), courts should stick with the state of domicile until Congress acts – which he admits probably won't be any time soon.
That doesn't consider that that is utterly impractical in some cases. What about federal employees who are assigned to different places every other year? Are soldiers supposed to to lose their family benefits when they are transferred to an anti-gay state? What about Foreign Service officers who are stationed abroad? How can denying their benefits like that possibly be constitutional?
How has being the citizen of a country any meaning at all if the benefits and protections you receive from the federal government depend on where exactly you reside within the country? I can't help but think that this is federalism taken way, way too far. If states want autonomy in their affairs, they shouldn't be able to dictate law to the federal government and federal courts in return.
6.
415kathleenk | July 6, 2012 at 3:57 pm
thanks scottie
its hard to tell that on the blog- it looks like its mr. denniston's opinion not the blag ( blah, blah, blah) how aptly named they are
7.
Dr. Brent Zenobia | July 7, 2012 at 6:59 am
Hey Scottie – here's another piece of news for you, regarding the Regnerus social science study published last month proporting to find that children of gay and lesbian parents weren't as socially well adapted as those of biological opposite-sex parents. A formal investigation of the peer review process has been requested by over 200 Ph.D.s. This is a big deal – you can read the letter here: http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/bombshell-le…
The particulars:
1. The peer review process was suspiciously short, it only took five weeks from the time the paper was received to the time it was accepted for publication. Most articles submitted to this journal take about a year to get through the peer review process.
2. The scholars who were invited to comment on the Regnerus paper in that same issue were substantially involved with the study, and have never before published articles on LGBT family issues.
3. No effort was made to solicit comments or peer review from scholars who had previously published articles on LGBT family structures.
These are serious allegations of academic misconduct.
8.
Mark B. | July 7, 2012 at 10:57 am
<img src="http://www.mynewcarquote.us/ikea/odd.jpg"/>I hope Obama does more for us, when he gets re-elected. <img src="http://www.mynewcarquote.us/xbox/vvv.jpg"/>
9.
SamHandwich | July 7, 2012 at 11:40 am
I keep reading that The Advocate endorsed a candidate for Prez "for the first time in decades". Who was the last one, and why the gap?
10.
Scottie Thomaston | July 7, 2012 at 1:02 pm
This is a great question and I've been trying to figure it out. It seems like (from stuff I've read so far) the last time they endorsed, it wasn't a presidential candidate. This may be the first time they've endorsed a candidate for that office – but again, it's hard to get information on this.
11.
jpmassar | July 7, 2012 at 3:09 pm
current law already states that for Social Security and Veteran's benefits, what counts is the state of domicile.
Current law, or current regulations? Potentially, regulations could be changed more easily.
12.
Steve | July 7, 2012 at 3:27 pm
Law unfortunately
38 U.S.C. § 103(c):
"In determining whether or not a person is or was the spouse of a veteran, their marriage shall be proven as valid for the purposes of all laws administered by the Secretary according to the law of the place where the parties resided at the time of the marriage or the law of the place where the parties resided when the right to benefits accrued."
42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(1)(A)(i):
"An applicant is the wife, husband, widow, or widower of a fully or currently insured individual for purposes of this title if the courts of the State in which such insured individual is domiciled at the time such applicant files an application"
The Social Security stuff has as some more paragraphs after that that are impossible to understand, so there may be some exceptions to that rule. For example it says that if two people went through a ceremony and believed in good faith that it would be a valid marriage, it may still be deemed valid. But if that also applies to same-sex couples would have to be determined by a court
13.
Mike in Baltimore | July 7, 2012 at 9:03 pm
"Apparently current law already states that for Social Security and Veteran's benefits, what counts is the state of domicile."
So that means first cousins married in Maryland (where it is legal to enter into such a marriage ), but living in Pennsylvania (where it is illegal to enter into such a marriage) are ineligible to receive Social Security, MediCare, MedicAid and/or Veteran's benefits if the benefits are based on the spouse's status as eligible? I wonder how many such people have been, and are now being denied, benefits on that reading?
Probably none.
I believe there is a concept of law that says if a law (or regulation) is on the books, but it isn't enforced in a uniform manner, it cannot be enforced at all against the populace.
In other words, if the SSA and/or DVA attempts to enforce the law and/or regulation, it better do it across the board, or not do it at all. Otherwise, it will be taken to court and the prospects of continuing non-uniform enforcement would seem to be very dim.
14.
Mike in Baltimore | July 8, 2012 at 1:50 am
Some publications (some by unwritten rule, more often by written rule) decide not to endorse any candidate for any political office. Usually it's because most people would be able to figure out real quick who the publication would endorse if they endorsed.
I'd wager that The Advocate falls in the category of unwritten rule.
15.
Str8Grandmother | July 8, 2012 at 4:42 am
415kathleenk, I had the exact same impression as you after reading the SCOTUS blog. He lays it out but then never ventures an opinion of which is the winning argument. I wanted to read opinion showing which was the stronger argument.
16.
Sagesse | July 8, 2012 at 5:57 am
The overturning of DOMA will be messy, as was the repeal of DADT, where service members, married or unmarried, still don't have access to family benefits. (The repeal of DOMA might be cleaner, because certain loose ends can be picked up in legislation that a court cannot.) Then the work goes on to clean up the loose ends.
The end of DOMA is different, however, because it will also put immense pressure on states to allow marriage equality over domestic partnerships, or by-passing domestic partnerships if they don't have them, because federal marriage benefits (and not just the financial ones) are a much bigger deal than state marriage benefits. Leaving behind the states with DOMA constitutional amendments.
Like DADT, get rid of it first. The cleanup will happen.
17.
davep | July 8, 2012 at 3:16 pm
In case anyone missed this bit of news, Congressman Barney Frank married his partner yesterday. There are other openly gay people in Congress, but this is the first time a gay Congressman and his same sex partner have legally married.
18.
Bob | July 8, 2012 at 3:31 pm
here's an article about what happens when big corps are left unattended
http://www.straight.com/article-727681/vancouver/…
19.
Bob | July 8, 2012 at 3:32 pm
The pharmaceutical giant guilty of criminal charges resulting in the largest fraud settlement in U.S. history has manoeuvred itself into a pivotal role in the academic world, funding influential positions at universities throughout Canada and many parts of the world.
20.
Rich | July 8, 2012 at 5:52 pm
Once again I note, large issues are discussed on this blog site whereas, on the NOM site, the issues are shallow and pedantic. The three or four regular posters are, clearly, uninformed, at best, and row religionists focus. to the larger world at worst. One wonders: how will they cope when SCOTUS finds in favor of the Constitution and not their narrow religionists focus.
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.