So What?

This is how you send a wingnut crazie to oblivion.

Mich is probably gobbling down mother’s little helpers by the mouthful (if the stories are true.)

So where”s the poutrage from the rest of the right? Outside of crazee eyes and Brian Fisher, they’ve been awfully quiet… I want wailing ang gnashing of teeth, dammit.

BTW. This ruling, good as it is, is very incomplete.

If you marry in a state with marriage equality but live in a state without then you are still not married according to the fed which follows the law in your state of residence. If you marry in New York but live in Utah you’re shit out of luck.

In one sense the situation is worse not better. On the other hand a certain amount of gloating is in order.

@Tommmcatt Can’t Believe He Ate The Whole Thing:
Only so much crazy-hol to go around. Between Obama winning a 2nd term, the melting of the Deen Empire and exposure of the self righteous crybaby act over the nothing (IRS investigation of teabaggers) there isn’t much left to hate on the ghey.

@Benedick: Yes and no. As I mentioned on Facebook in response to Cubbie’s question, one of Sully’s readers raised the issue of place of celebration versus place of residence in how federal agencies decide whether to confer recognition. Oregon Public Broadcasting helpfully breaks it down like so:

Some federal agencies adhere to what is known as a “place of celebration” standard. That means, no matter where a couple is legally married anywhere in the world, the union is recognized for the purpose of federal benefits.

But other agencies, including the Internal Revenue Service and the Social Security Administration, hew to a “place of residence” standard. Marriage has to be recognized in the place the couple is living for them to be eligible for those federal spousal benefits.

“Every agency of government has, quite literally, a different standard for recognizing marriage,” Sainz says. “They did not consult one another – and it has nothing to do with being gay or straight, they just have different standards.”

Here’s one example that points to the complexity to come: The Department of Defense has a “place of celebration” marriage standard for active duty military. But the Department of Veterans Affairs has a “place of residence” standard.

While some definitions are set by regulation, others – including those used by Social Security and Veterans Affairs – are set by federal law, further complicating the DOMA rollback.

So, if you’re active duty, married in Maryland but living in Virginia, and then retire, your spousal benefits won’t just roll over the way that they should. Unless, say, Obama steps in and forces the agencies’ hands with an executive order.

@mellbell: Doesn’t a contract entered into in one state have to be recognized in other states per the Constitution? Is marriage considered a contract?

@Tommmcatt Can’t Believe He Ate The Whole Thing: You’re thinking of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, but no. Each state has it own marriage laws (and, apart from all this, they differ as to, say, whether first cousins can marry and how old you must be to marry without parental consent) and no state has to recognize another state’s marriages, which is why the decision in Loving v. Virginia (the big interracial marriage case, involving a couple married in DC but living in Virginia; fun fact: Mildred Loving, who died in 2008, came out for same-sex marriage in 2007) simply threw out all race-based restrictions on marriage. The part of DOMA concerning this (Section 2) was not at issue in this case.

@mellbell: That’s not how the NY Times sees it. I think they’re reporting that so far as immigration, tax, and social security survivor rights go (I’ve already cut through the brake line on the car) it’s where you live not where you marry that counts.

Of course it’s perfectly possible I’ve got it all wrong. The Times also reports that the administration is already working on ways to get around this.

@Benedick: That’s not inconsistent with what I’ve read. The whole problem is that it’s all very piecemeal (different agencies following different standards), and an executive order would go a long way toward correcting that.

@mellbell: I’m not holding my breath on that one.

@Tommmcatt Can’t Believe He Ate The Whole Thing: No kidding.

Ol’ KKKrayzee Eyes is melting! Melting! Oh, what a world, what a world…

The VBA takes the vet’s word on marriage as long as we have the place, date, number of previous marriages of both spouses to whomever, how those ended and DOB of current spouse/kids and SSNs, and we move on unless we have inconsistent statements from the vet. Then we ask for proof, or we get the info from a phone call. Whatever gets them their benefits faster.

So, in states that have phased out common law marriage, we still recognize the ones that were grandfathered in no matter where the vet lives now.

Blah blah. The VBA is much more lax.

@Tommmcatt Can’t Believe He Ate The Whole Thing: As mellbell notes, DOMA Section 2 specifically excludes gay marriages from being automatically recognized by all states. Despite the news, DOMA still stands, except for the provision preventing the Feds from recognizing state-legal gay marriages.

The specific case involved the federal estate tax: The Feds said as far as they were concerned the ladies weren’t married, and taxed the shit out of the surviving partner’s inheritance.

@nojo: They created a shitstorm for themselves…

@Tommmcatt Can’t Believe He Ate The Whole Thing: As Scalia fumed, Section 2 is next — this decision lays the groundwork for overturning it.

Lawyers are already on the ground in Utah and elsewhere, looking for a test case — good victims make good publicity. The betting is on, say, a couple married in New York with kids, job requirements force the family to move to Insert Red State Here, and Unconstitutional Hilarity Ensues. Stir, simmer in the courts for five years, and finally Sodomites are full citizens.

@nojo: And finally I get some poor sucker to marry my dog! Win-Win!

@nojo: We should recruit RptrCub and Mr. Cub to be the test couple.