In fit of irony, Scalia's words are used to expand same-sex marriage in two states.

Northside Storm · Dec 26, 2013

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Conservative-justice-s-words-boost-same-sex-5093049.php

The final stage in the campaign to win same-sex marriage rights in court may be under way with a flurry of rulings in the past week calling for equal rights for gay and lesbian couples.

And two federal judges found an unlikely source of support - the writings of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who has warned in dissenting opinions that the high court was sanctioning an unprecedented and unwarranted expansion of the right to marry.

In one passage, U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby of Utah said he "agrees with Justice Scalia's interpretation" of the Supreme Court's ruling in June that overturned the central provision of the Defense of Marriage Act, the 1996 law that denied federal benefits to married same-sex couples.

While Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion for a 5-4 majority focused on the rights of couples who were already married under state law, Scalia's dissent said the court's rationale - that DOMA was motivated by a "desire to harm" same-sex spouses, and thus was an unconstitutional act of discrimination - would be applied much more broadly.

"How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status," Scalia wrote.

In a Dec. 20 ruling, Shelby struck down Utah's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, invoking the high court's reasoning in the DOMA case - not for the state law's motivations, which he said must have differed among voters, but for its impact on same-sex couples.

Three days later, U.S. District Judge Timothy Black quoted another passage from the same Scalia dissent in explaining his decision to strike down an Ohio law that denied recognition of a gay or lesbian couple's out-of-state marriage on Ohio death certificates: "No one should be fooled" by the scope of the DOMA ruling, Scalia wrote. "The majority arms well any challenge to a state law restricting marriage to the traditional definition."
Click to expand...

I guess you give the man a point for being astute.

Then maybe two for karmic retribution.

IzakDavid13 · Dec 26, 2013

What Fedral or State benefits do married couples receive in the USA? Just curious.

Space Ghost · Dec 26, 2013

IzakDavid13 said: ↑

What Fedral or State benefits do married couples receive in the USA? Just curious.
Click to expand...

Ones that should be rethought and removed if necessary.

itstheyear3030 · Dec 26, 2013

IzakDavid13 said: ↑

What Fedral or State benefits do married couples receive in the USA? Just curious.
Click to expand...

"Married" status affects a lot of things. For most people, it mostly affects taxes; the US tax code is structured to give married people a fairly significant advantage over single people. I would assume it also affects most state taxes. In addition, the definition of "married" also affects other government-related things such as immigration, adoption, availability/amount of certain government programs/financial aid programs, etc.

NewRoxFan · Dec 26, 2013

itstheyear3030 said: ↑

"Married" status affects a lot of things. For most people, it mostly affects taxes; the US tax code is structured to give married people a fairly significant advantage over single people. I would assume it also affects most state taxes. In addition, the definition of "married" also affects other government-related things such as immigration, adoption, availability/amount of certain government programs/financial aid programs, etc.
Click to expand...

I believe probate and insurance protections are provided to married couples... eg, assets may be automatically transferred to the surviving spouse that would instead be held up in probate.

NewRoxFan · Dec 26, 2013

Space Ghost said: ↑

Ones that should be rethought and removed if necessary.
Click to expand...

Wow... you would prefer a significant increase in federal income taxes and probate taxes than to provide equal rights to gay people?

DFWRocket · Dec 26, 2013

NewRoxFan said: ↑

Wow... you would prefer a significant increase in federal income taxes and probate taxes than to provide equal rights to gay people?
Click to expand...

I took it that he was saying Married people should not get any tax breaks just because they are married.

NewRoxFan · Dec 26, 2013

Understood, and posted previously. But the question remains. Our laws already provided the benefits to married couples... so, does the poster want higher taxes? Or does he want to continue to discriminate against gay people?

white lightning · Dec 26, 2013

Also the right to consult with doctors about spouse's medical condition and make decisions if necessary.

Northside Storm · Dec 26, 2013

https://www.hrc.org/resources/entry...ts-and-protections-granted-to-married-couples

There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law.
Click to expand...

According to the GAO report, as of 1997 there were 179 tax provisions that took marital status into account.
Click to expand...

Surviving spouse and surviving parent benefits are denied to gay and lesbian Americans because they cannot marry. Thus, a lesbian couple who contributes an equal amount to Social Security over their lifetime as a married couple would receive drastically unequal benefits.
Click to expand...

Inequitable Treatment of Children Raised in LGBT Households
Recent data shows that at least 1 million children are being raised by same-sex couples in the United States. The Code contains competing definitions of “child.” Certain provisions of the Code defining child penalize for the marital status of their parents and caregivers.
Click to expand...

Estate Tax (the issue raised in United States v. Windsor)
Internal Revenue Code § 2056 exempts amounts transferred to a surviving spouse from the decedent’s taxable estate. For same-sex couples who are legally barred from marriage, this exemption is not available, creating an inequity in taxation.
Click to expand...

The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) guarantees family and medical leave to employees to care for parents, children or spouses. As currently interpreted, this law does not provide leave to care for a domestic partner or the domestic partner’s family member. Family and medical leave should be a benefit for all American workers.
Click to expand...

Currently, U.S. immigration law does not allow lesbian and gay citizens or permanent residents to petition for their same-sex partners to immigrate.
Click to expand...

According to the GAO Report, marital status affects over 270 provisions dealing with current and retired federal employees, members of the Armed Forces, elected officials, and judges. Most significantly, under current law, domestic partners of federal employees are excluded from the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP).
Click to expand...

be careful about being spiteful about equal rights, there's a whole lot more entrenched then most people could ever fathom. Why be petty, and deny a group of citizens such unequal access to fundamental protections?

I suppose that is if you believe families are beneficial for society, which is the current of thought that permeates American politics. Regardless, nobody should be excluded from a category of rights reserved for groups for arbitrary and irrational reasons. That is the anti-thesis of what America is about.

Space Ghost · Dec 26, 2013

NewRoxFan said: ↑

Understood, and posted previously. But the question remains. Our laws already provided the benefits to married couples... so, does the poster want higher taxes? Or does he want to continue to discriminate against gay people?
Click to expand...

You want to argue for the sake of arguing. Believing that a bad idea should not be further shared is not discrimination. And its not just about taxes.

The 'traditional' marriage was geared towards a man, a wife and kids. Again, traditionally, the man went to work, the woman stayed home and took care of the kids. This tradition is not as common.

That said, when you have a family (ie. kids/dependents), I do believe there should be extended benefits. I really don't care if they are Christian, Muslim or Athiest. Or if they are straight or gay. Black or White. Or any other hot topic.

If you have two adults who are completely capable of taking care of themselves and no dependents, then there are some benefits that should not be extended, regardless of sexuality.

BigBenito · Dec 26, 2013

I agree with you, Space Ghost. My wife and I would even fit under your example.

But, wow, the timing of the suddenly pro-tax stance comes off as politically tone deaf as the anti-voter fraud shenanigans.

Forums

In fit of irony, Scalia's words are used to expand same-sex marriage in two states.

Northside Storm Contributing Member

IzakDavid13 Contributing Member

Space Ghost Contributing Member

itstheyear3030 Member

NewRoxFan Contributing Member

NewRoxFan Contributing Member

DFWRocket Member

NewRoxFan Contributing Member

white lightning Contributing Member

Northside Storm Contributing Member

Space Ghost Contributing Member

BigBenito Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!