Barack Obama | DOMA | Gay Marriage | News

Federal Marriage Benefits Remain Uncertain In The Wake Of Prop. 8 & DOMA Rulings

Waiting for the Supreme Court...Almost one month after the Supreme Court's landmark decision to gut DOMA, legal analysts and experts are still trying to make sense as to how it specifically impacts same-sex couples and their benefits. While the decision was explicit in terms of including all "lawful marriages", the situation remains less-than-clear for those living in what legal scholars refer to as the 36 "mini-DOMA" states, according to an editorial released in yesterday's Washington Post

According to Bloomberg, approximately one-third of the roughly 130,000 married same-sex couples live in such states that have laws in place forbidding the practice and/or recognition of same-sex marriage. As WaPo and SCOTUS Blog have already argued, this could certainly prove problematic for federal agencies wishing to determine which couples are "legally married". Do said agencies use the guidelines laid down by the state of the couple's residence, or the state that legally married them? WaPo has already pointed out that: 

"Each agency has its regulations, and some define marriage based on where a couple resides rather than where the spouses were married — obviously inhospitable to same-sex couples living in the states that don’t recognize their marriages."

Thus, the absence of any centralized standard would likely make an already-tricky situation even more so. Luckily, President Obama has already expressed that, "it’s my personal belief, but I’m speaking now as a president not as a lawyer, that if you marry someone in Massachusetts and you move somewhere else, you’re still married." To that end, the Justice Department has updated the regulations for many federal agencies thusly, such as the Office of Personnel Management. For other agencies, however, such as the Internal Revenue Service, the situation remains far from certain. As WaPo has pointed out, changing guidelines for other agencies would require the approval of a gridlocked Congress. While it is possible for President Obama to sign an executive order instructing all agencies to follow suit with the Office of Personnel Management and the Pentagon, as Bloomberg explained, doing so would almost certainly trigger a backlash. "Careful consideration is important," they said, "especially with opponents of same-sex marriage already warning that they will sue if federal policies impose de facto same-sex marriage in states where voters have opposed it."

As a result, it would seem that, when it comes to enforcing the Supreme Court's ruling on DOMA, the situation is only truly clear in the 12 states that do allow marriage equality (as well as the District of Columbia). To borrow from The Washington Post's Editorial Board...

"For the sake of clarity and equality, lawmakers must help the administration harmonize standards across the government, recognizing the union of any couple legally married in any state, no matter where they now reside and no matter what piece of the federal government is looking."

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. This is about federal law. Thus the government wouldn't be imposing anything on backwards states.

    Posted by: Steve | Jul 22, 2013 9:25:19 PM


  2. Full faith and credit clause. End of story. Because you can't end a contract by moving across state lines. Anti-marriage bigots can suck it. Bring on the next lawsuit, bitches, because we'll win that one, too!!!

    Posted by: Chris | Jul 22, 2013 9:46:25 PM


  3. Homophobes aren't the only ones who can mount a backlash.

    Mini-DOMAs are now under full assault from multiple directions. Regardless of what the IRS does about married gay couples, they are also going to be in a bind about "separate but equal" CUs and DPs, since they have already established the precedent that heterosexual CU/DP couples should be filing as married if the state where they reside treats them as such. Given that Oregon, Nevada, Illinois, New Jersey, and Colorado treat CUs/DPs as married in all but name, the question then becomes: is it constitutional to withhold the word "married" from these couples for the purpose of stigmatizing them?

    Posted by: BZ | Jul 22, 2013 10:28:35 PM


  4. Forgot Hawaii. There may be other states as well, it's getting harder to keep current.

    Posted by: BZ | Jul 22, 2013 10:30:39 PM


  5. it may be that the deep red states with their more onerous laws are the ones that will provide us with the victories in court that will strike down section 2 of DOMA, which deals with portability, effectively making it useless.

    the ohio case with the terminal client has already won decisively in circuit court, and may be, alone or in a class action, the case that tips the rock off the battlement.

    LOOK OUT BELOW!

    Posted by: bandanajack | Jul 23, 2013 12:05:56 AM


  6. The president should just issue the executive order. Who would stop him from implementing those changes? As the article says, Congress is hopelessly gridlocked (a situation that seems perpetual). As for the courts, they've already spoken on the issue, haven't they?

    Posted by: NSmith | Jul 23, 2013 2:53:56 AM


  7. And, even if the mini-DOMA states sue, they have no standing. The issue is the division of federal benefits, not state benefits.

    Nor do the third party homophobes have standing, as demonstrated by the Proposition 8 ruling at the Supreme Court.

    Posted by: NSmith | Jul 23, 2013 2:56:35 AM


  8. This will be resolved in the courts...and I assume quite soon. The states will be permitted to continue their homophobia, but federal benefits will have to be offered to parties regardless of their residency if legally married.

    Posted by: candideinnc | Jul 23, 2013 5:09:26 AM


  9. At this point, Congress should just repeal DOMA

    Posted by: Peterpiper | Jul 23, 2013 2:32:05 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Satanic Group To Be Charged With Trespassing For Pink Mass Ritual« «