Footnote to yesterday’s post

June 28, 2013

specifically the section on DOMA:

The question of same-sex couples having Federal rights which differ according to the law of their state raises two issues I hadn’t considered at first. One is the question of what happens if they live in a hetero-only state but were married in an equal-marriage state;  I understand Pres Obama has indicated that they should  be considered married regardless of residence, and if the Federal government acts accordingly, it is hard to see how that  could be challenged in court – who would have standing to object? Which would lead to couples living next door to each other, one having joint tax returns etc and the other not; workers in the same workplace, one able to have  same-sex partners recognized for social security and medicare purposes, the other not.

The other was brought to my attention by this article in today’s Times – what about New Jersey and other states where civil unions are supposed to have all the benefits of marriage without the name? Can that position be at all viable now?

So, without directly affecting the hetero-only marriage laws of the majority of states, the fall of DOMA may very well indirectly hasten the onset of equal marriage everywhere, just by creating anomalies of this sort.

I can hardly wait to see this play itself out…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: