Supreme Court finds DOMA unconstitutional

[SB Shock]

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court struck down a key part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act on Wednesday and declared that same-sex couples who are legally married deserve equal rights to the benefits under federal law that go to all other married couples.

[SB Shock]

from ACLJ on what it means

http://aclj.org/traditional-marriage/same-sex-marriage-cases-happened-what-they-mean

Essentially, the DOMA ruling means that the federal government must provide the same benefits to same-sex spouses as opposite-sex spouses, if the same-sex marriage has been lawfully performed. In other words, if a gay couple is married in a state that recognizes gay marriage, then the federal government will recognize that marriage on the same basis as a traditional marriage.
The Prop 8 ruling is far more complex, but the bottom line is that it likely clears the way for same-sex marriage in California. It does not, however, have any real implications for marriages outside of California.

Critically, neither ruling establishes a federal, constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Those states that have marriage amendments defining marriage as the union of a man and woman are untouched by these rulings. Those states that recognize same-sex marriage are similarly untouched.
The bottom line? The definition of marriage is reaffirmed as a matter primarily of state law, not federal law. The issue goes back to the states, and for the foreseeable future, states will continue to define the parameters of lawful marriage.

[WuDrWu]

I snickered reading many comments about this today....so many people understand so little.

[GoShockers89]

.

[BenWSU]

Interested to know if churches will be forced to perform gay marriages or face losing their tax status

[rrshock]

Interested to know if churches will be forced to perform gay marriages or face losing their tax status

Highly doubt it because a church can already tell a couple they won't marry them due to numerous reasons

[MoValley John]

Highly doubt it because a church can already tell a couple they won't marry them due to numerous reasons

That all could change. I'm not saying it will change, but you never know. Obama already lied to the Catholic church, guaranteeing the American bishops that if passed, Obamacare would include a conscious clause. As soon as he got their support and the bill was passed, the conscious clause disappeared.

Anything can happen.

[GoShockers89]

.

[pinstripers]

Interested to know if churches will be forced to perform gay marriages or face losing their tax status

Pretty likely that this has been discussed and is the long-term plan.

[SubGod22]

Even if gay marriage is made the law of the land, churches will not be forced to perform them. I don't care how anti-church this president is, DC will never force churches to do it. People can and are legally married without going through a church so there's no point in trying to force one to do something that is against its beliefs. I know ObamaCare is trying to do just that, but I don't see it holding in such cases.

[SubGod22]

Pretty likely that this has been discussed and is the long-term plan.

I don't think such a thing would hold up in court.

[wu_shizzle]

President Obama speaking about the Boy Scouts allowing openly gay Scout leaders:

"My attitude is gays and lesbians should have access and opportunity, the same way everybody else does. In every institution and walk of life."

They never stop, they will eventually sue "every institution" who does not give them "access and opportunity".

[MoValley John]

Absolutely not. State gay marriage bans are still completely constitutional after this pair of decisions. Even if that changes at some point in a future decision, they won't dare risk First Amendment entanglement with an Equal Protection case. Ignore it if that's what spam emails are saying- they're wrong.

Interestingly, if a state allows civil unions (but not actual gay marriage), then gays are still ineligible for federal recognition of marriage benefits if they have a ceremony performed in that state. They have to travel to another state where gay marriage is legal, get hitched, then return to their home state (where intestacy and wills laws won't recognize the validity of the marriage but things like social security benefits will still get applied to their spouse).

Too much faith in the government. This is far from over. The gay rights community is already preparing for future legislation and litigation. If you look at the original intent and scope of social security, and compare it with social security today, you wouldn't recognize the two as the same. The whole gay marriage thing isn't all that important of an issue to me, in fact, I don't really care, but this issue is far from settled, and as I pointed out above with the conscious clause, Obama has already muddied the waters with regard to church and state. And that issue could have a much bigger impact than gay marriage.

[wu_shizzle]

Even if gay marriage is made the law of the land, churches will not be forced to perform them. I don't care how anti-church this president is, DC will never force churches to do it. People can and are legally married without going through a church so there's no point in trying to force one to do something that is against its beliefs. I know ObamaCare is trying to do just that, but I don't see it holding in such cases.

Their goal is to take tax-exempt status away from churches. The argument will be: "We respect your beliefs and your religious freedom. But, if you will not obey the law of the land and continue to discriminate, you will forfeit your "community benefit" and tax exempt status."

Look at how this administration is structuring the IRS for enforcing their political goals.

[GoShockers89]

.