DOMA struck down

[MrFun]

As I understand each state can decide if they want same sex marriage but the Fed has to acknowledge either stance the state has?

If Neal and I get married in Iowa, and then we move to a backward state like Georgia, Neal and I will still get equal federal benefits of marriage even if Georgia does not legally recognize our marriage.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If Neal and I get married in Iowa, and then we move to a backward state like Georgia, Neal and I will still get equal federal benefits of marriage even if Georgia does not legally recognize our marriage.

That's actually not altogether clear.

[MrFun]

That's actually not altogether clear.

I am reading parts of the official ruling right now. So what is clear with the ruling, then?

[MrFun]

Also, I appreciate the fact that the majority ruling has clearly referred to the Loving vs. Virginia case.

Those here on Apolyton who said that historical issues regarding interracial marriage cannot be compared to issues regarding same sex couples marrying can eat their words now.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So what is clear with the ruling, then?

People who reside in states that have accepted same-sex marriage, will be able to avail themselves of all federal benefits for married couples. People who got married in a state that accepts same-sex marriage, but moved to state which does not accept that - that is unclear what happens.

http://www.lambdalegal.org/publications/after-doma-federal-taxes

Until same-sex couples can marry in every state in the nation, there will be uncertainty about the extent to which same-sex spouses will receive federal marital-based protections nationwide. For federal programs that assess marital status based on the law of a state that does not respect marriages of same-sex couples, those state laws will likely pose obstacles for legally married couples and surviving spouses in accessing federal protections and responsibilities.

Also:

http://www.lambdalegal.org/publications/after-doma-federal-taxes#2

under current IRS practice, a person can file his or her income tax return as “married filing jointly” or “married filing separately” if the individual is considered married in his or her state of domicile (essentially, the permanent residence/primary home).

[MrFun]

I did not know that state laws can constitutionally overrule federal laws.

[PLATO]

To me this ruling is more a victory for State's Rights than anything else. Clearly, the federal government was trying to usurp a right of the States to define marriage...a power clearly not enumerated to them in the Constitution. While this is also a victory for same-sex couples in States that allow same-sex marriage, it could equally be viewed as a defeat for couples in States that do not allow same-sex marriage.

I don't believe that the opinions are tailored to this line of thinking, but it seems to be the jist of the matter to me. Am I wrong?

[PLATO]

I did not know that state laws can constitutionally overrule federal laws.

I think they do when the federal government does not have the power to make such laws.

[MrFun]

I think they do when the federal government does not have the power to make such laws.

So a state like Alabama can deny a same sex couple federal benefits of marriage, thus overruling federal laws that grant such privileges.

[PLATO]

So a state like Alabama can deny a same sex couple federal benefits of marriage, thus overruling federal laws that grant such privileges.

I would imagine that if they were legally married in "a state like Alabama" or any other state that they would get the benefits now. If they are not legally married then they wouldn't.

Now, the question for federal purposes, is: Will the federal government recognize a marriage in California where the couple now lives in Alabama? That is the part that needs clarification. In my opinion, they should...the marriage was legally performed and should thus meet the federal test. Any benefits that they might receive from the State of Alabama would probably not be available however. Just my take...Imran could probably clarify things a bit more.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So a state like Alabama can deny a same sex couple federal benefits of marriage, thus overruling federal laws that grant such privileges.

You need to stop talking because you are sounding like a moron.

Federal benefits are tied to state determinations, because the states have the power over marriage in our federalist system.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Now, the question for federal purposes, is: Will the federal government recognize a marriage in California where the couple now lives in Alabama? That is the part that needs clarification. In my opinion, they should...the marriage was legally performed and should thus meet the federal test. Any benefits that they might receive from the State of Alabama would probably not be available however. Just my take...Imran could probably clarify things a bit more.

It's a good, and like I said not completely clear, question. I think it can go either way - the IRS currently looks at the marriage law in the state where the person is currently domiciled, so that everyone in the state follows the same marriage rules for federal or state. Or the IRS can do a more patchwork idea and say marriage where legally entered into is good enough for federal concerns regardless where you move - so you couldn't get state benefits of marriage, but you could for federal. It's really up to what the IRS wants to do.

[PLATO]

Is it just me or does nearly everything these days come down to "It depends on what the IRS wants to do?"

[MrFun]

Gay couples in which one partner is an American citizen, and the other is not, are breathing sighs of relief.

[self biased]

what's funny to me is my straight, cisgendered friends doing this super obnoxious braying about happy they are over the decision. It's like some kind of perverse straight guilt, as if they were some kind of lorax that speaks for the queers.