Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Majority of Justices Skeptical of Federal Ban on Benefits to Same-Sex Spouses

By: DigSpace in ALEA | Recommend this post (0)
Thu, 28 Mar 13 8:08 AM | 74 view(s)
Boardmark this board | The Trust Matrix 		Msg. 13062 of 54959
(This msg. is a reply to 13061 by Cactus Flower)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

the fed assigns benefits to folks that are "married" but claims that marriage is the providence of the states. what the states are telling the fed is variably:

1. banning gay marriage
2. saying gay marriage is constitutional right
3. deliberately legalizing gay marriage.

the fed is trying to at once defer and assign, and the justices seem to see that as well. as the justices do not want R v W part deux (federal dictate)(or so it seems from the prop 8 spin) and given that the const does have the whole bit of recognizing legal contacts across states and equal protection, they (SCOTUS) are in a jam. there are only two paths that would seem to reflect a rational position: 1) they R v. W the whole thing via Prop 8 or 2) they dump DOMA. If I contract to marry, or sell a car, or eat tofu in Delaware, my wandering to NJ doesn't change things much (as I understand it) and fed seems to be trying to selectively exclude itself through DOMA.

fed's choices (normally) are either to supercede (e.g R v W) or to honor legal contracts. they are picking and choosing contracts, voiding those from some states and honoring those from others, contracts that all claim to be legally addressing an identical issue all on a matter to which they claim the states preside over the definition.

it seems DOMA is going down. otherwise it would seem too much like federal cherry picking, reminiscent of their concerns over the whole voting rights act and whether fed was just selectively picking on certain states for historical reasons.

» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Majority of Justices Skeptical of Federal Ban on Benefits to Same-Sex Spouses
By: Cactus Flower in ALEA
Wed, 27 Mar 13 9:53 PM 		Msg. 13061 of 54959

“The question is whether or not the federal government under a federalism system has the authority to regulate marriage...”

Isn't the question whether the federal government under a federalist system has the authority to regulate entitlements?

The whole discussion is confused by the fact there are two issues in play.

The first concerns love and commitment to a partner. That is not in issue for me. Of course society should not prevent homosexual people from tying the knot. Even so, I don't assign a "right" to it. It's just something that is none of anyone else's business. Same as with heteromarriage. The law should not be written to discriminate.

The second concerns special entitlements for married couples. To me, the existing benefit is discriminatory against unmarried people as a class (using the current definition) rather than against homosexuals. In my view, a more egalitarian solution admits that the privileges are justifiable in favour of and should be assigned to parents rather than married couples.

But I see no reason why the lesbian partner of a deceased spouse in a nulliparous marriage should not pay a tax on the estate, whereas the heterosexual partner of a deceased person in an informal relationship which produced children must do so. For entitlement purposes, the existence of children is more significant to me than the existence of a piece of paper.

As usual, it seems that I derive a different position than the set-piece positions in the press. This gets frustrating.

« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next