Here’s how I understand the Prop 8 ruling: The state declined to defend Prop 8 in court, so a bunch of anti-gay bigots took over. These petitioners lost in state court, so they took the case to Federal Court. Today’s ruling denied them standing in Federal Court, so the Federal appeal is dismissed. Since the Federal appeal was appealing a state court decision prohibiting the enforcement of Prop 8, Prop 8 will not be enforced. Therefore, gay marriage is not prohibited by the California constitution, and California courts have already ruled that gays can marry due to the equal protection clause of the California constitution, so gays can marry in California again. (Or, the 75% Democratic legislature can pass a bill allowing gay marriage, which Jerry Brown would certainly sign.)
In other words: states rights!
Lawyers, chime in on this one.
Update: According to the Wiki page for the Federal case, the correct chronology is that the State Supreme Court upheld Prop 8, and Federal Count reversed that holding. California declined to appeal that Federal Court ruling, so the anti-gay bigots took over the hard work of keeping the gays from ruining marriage for everyone. Today’s ruling by the Supremes shuts down those bigots, so the Federal ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional stands.
Xboxershorts
IANAL, however….That’s how I read the decision too, except rather than the CA Federal Appeals originally dismissing, I thought they punted to SCOTUS and SCOTUS punted back saying Appeals court should have dismissed this.
sb
I’m no lawyer but that’s how I understand the situation.
I’m interested in an explanation of Sotomayor’s dissent.
mistermix
@sb: I believe it has something to do with legislating from the bench.
Linda Featheringill
INAL but here on the ground it looks like the good guys won today. Very nice.
I found it interesting that DOMA was struck down not as something the federal govt has no business messing with but as a violation of equal protection.
Maybe this means that state level DOMA equivalent laws are also unconstitutional.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@sb: I suspect she doesn’t like the “doesn’t have standing” cop out and wanted to rule on the merits of the case.
Punchy
Burnsie here in a few minutes to tell you what a complete dumbass you are for even suggesting any of this. Also, too, he’s a lawyer so shut up that’s why.
Napoleon
Bingo, but states rights has nothing to do with it. The court basically treated it the same way they would treat any case filed by some random party on behalf of some other party they have no right to file on behalf of. I would have been amazed if they ruled on any other basis since this gave them a ready made excuse to punt.
scottinnj
It appears that the ruling on DOMA is that States trump Federal. What isn’t clear is what happens when two states have differing rules. Would, say, Kansas be required to provide the same marital benefits and standing to a gay couple that was married under the laws of the state of New York? I don’t think that was covered in the DOMA and again the state-vs-state issue is outside of the appeal here
Prop 8 seems a bit of a punt but I think this was the expected likely ruling all along, once you determine there is lack of standing there isn’t much need to go any further.. I think this means that if you have an opposite of 8 (say, a gay couple that wanted to get married in a state that did not recognize gay marriage) to opine on that. If Mr x was the gay person who wanted to be married it seems that would settle the standing issue that was the issue in the Prop 8 ruling.
Mark S.
@Punchy:
Also, some college lacrosse coach nobody’s ever heard of is worse than Hitler.
eemom
I haven’t read the Prop 8 decision, but the DOMA decision is absolutely states’ rights, all the way through, and culminating in a last sentence which reads: “This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages.”
The prohibition on SSM here in Virginia and other swamps still stands.
Face
Wait. Does it really mean it’s not prohibited, or more specially, that such law-breakage will not result in arrest/fine? IOW, are you sure Prop 8 is officially off the books, or is this more a case of a de facto death of Prop 8, since its adherence wont be enforced?
PeakVT
Here’s the Wikipedia article on Hollingsworth v. Perry. If it is correct I think DougJ has some of his timeline wrong.
w3ski
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_California
w3ski
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_California
Mnemosyne
I am not a lawyer, so I’ll just say WOOT!
I will also remind any gay couples in Southern California that July is a perfectly fine time for a wedding if you plan it right (daytime receptions should be indoors) and Neighborhood Unitarian Universalist Church in Pasadena is a lovely setting and has supported marriage equality since at least 2006, when G and I were married there. All of our guests had to walk to the chapel under a rainbow “We Support Gay Marriage” banner, which made us happy.
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
I’m going to read the slip opinions prior to commenting on the legal bases offered or the actual consequences. It’s been a busy work morning so I’m sure I’ll be late to the party. Thanks for starting the conversation mistermix. Now that you’ve done so, get on the Snowden search, please.
FlipYrWhig
@eemom: Does this make it any easier for a same-sex couple married legally outside of VA to take VA to court so that their out-of-state marriage can be legally acknowledged in-state?
Hal
I am very interested in how Kennedy and Sotomayor would have ruled had the court not punted. I’m also wondering if the more liberal wing took the safest approach to the ruling.
eemom
@Linda Featheringill:
Kennedy’s opinion was carefully crafted to make the federal equal protection analysis essentially indistinguishable from what he describes as the states’ right to confer equal dignity on same sex couples. Therefore, as noted above, today’s decision does not touch state DOMA laws.
beergoggles
The fact that scotus said 9C ruling on prop8 was vacated and remanded meant that the original circuit ruling stands unless 9C has anything additional to say about it as long as it recognizes that the proposition sponsors have no standing.
So yeah prop 8 is down but I think CA legislature needs to pass a marriage law again for it to become legal.
me
@PeakVT: My impression of that is the district court could allow outside groups to act as defendants but they didn’t have standing to appeal when the proposition was struck down. The downside is that the ruling is now only valid in California and not the entire Ninth Circuit.
eemom
@FlipYrWhig:
Absolutely it does, and that will happen next.
It’s going to be very interesting to see how all this neo-federalist shit plays out. In yesterday’s abomination, for example, one of the things Roberts did was to breathe new life into something called the “equal sovereignty” among states, which previously related only to the process of becoming a state in the first place.
Cacti
@Hal:
I have a feeling that Sotomayor voted as she did on standing b/c she wanted to force a ruling on the merits.
max
In other words: states rights!
What Napoleon said: the Supreme Court will not take sides in a case in which a state government declines to defend state law. That’s sensible enough. And since the CA Supremes struck down Prop. 8, that’s it for Prop. 8. Gay marriage is no longer prohibited in CA, so they can formally legalize it. (Although formally legalizing it may be a bit tricky because Prop. 8 still exists. If the CA legislature legalizes gay marriage and somebody sues, it basically has to go back to court, which will then presumably throw it out based on the original Supremes ruling.)
max
[‘Almost there though.’]
Sister Rail Gun of Warm Humanitarianism
From SCOTUSBlog’s liveblog:
Mnemosyne
@beergoggles:
If that’s the case, then no problemo. Our legislature had actually passed a marriage equality law long before Prop 8, but the Governator vetoed it and they didn’t have quite enough votes to overcome the veto.
So, yes, here in California, two out of the three branches of our government were on board with marriage equality, which is why Prop 8 had to be thrown onto the ballot.
Higgs Boson's Mate
Definitely not a lawyer. Doesn’t the striking down of DOMA mean that states must recognize marriages legal in other states under Article IV, Section 1 (Full faith and credit clause) of the Constitution?
EDIT: IOW if you are legally married in CA, for instance, and then move to a state that doesn’t allow your kind of marriage that state must still recognize you as being married with all of the rights and privileges that attain to marriage.
PeakVT
Never mind.
ETA: also, mistermix, not DougJ.
Villago Delenda Est
@max:
If the state court said Prop 8 is bullshit, then Prop 8 is dead, it not? The feds don’t have a role in dealing with this, no matter what the Christianist shitstains say.
Forum Transmitted Disease
Win the right to marry, lose the right to vote. Cheer on, libtards.
mistermix
The “states rights” thing was a joke. I updated the post after reading Wiki articles, thanks to all who pointed it out.
Omnes Omnibus
@Higgs Boson’s Mate: Ultimately, yes. That is the next issue to be litigated.
Roger Moore
@Higgs Boson’s Mate:
I don’t think so. AFAIK, the Court was ruling only on the parts of DOMA that apply to federal benefits, not mutual recognition, so those parts still stand.
eemom
@Forum Transmitted Disease:
Don’t forget the sacred right to shoot up a classroom full of six years olds. Ain’t nuthin gonna touch that.
beergoggles
@Mnemosyne: And with the new CA governor, all 3 branches are pro-equality and there should be many more wedding bells soon!
eemom
@mistermix:
in the Prop 8 context, maybe. Otherwise, it is very, very far from a joke.
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
@eemom: My suspicion is that all this neofederalist shit will play out in a spectacularly ugly fashion. This combination of opinion language could make for the most lasting damage to what we’ve come to see as the legal relationship among states and the federal government. Fuckers.
Cacti
@Roger Moore:
This.
Full faith and credit recognition by other States was not an issue before the court, and will almost certainly have to be litigated in the future.
joes527
@eemom: This is true, but is going to get increasingly dicey for the SSM states from here on out. States are going to have to figure out how to deal with folks legally married in other states. Without the federal DOMA providing aircover, it is going to be difficult for states to continue pick and choose which out of state marriages they recognize without ending up in court. (with a SC precedent against them)
So no, the floodgates aren’t open. But I wouldn’t be surprised if today puts us past the point of no return.
Violet
@FlipYrWhig: Heard a legal analyst discussing this on TV. Said it was that kind of issue that is still up for determination. The Justice Dept has to figure out how to implement it. Not going to be decided overnight. The decision has a lot of ramifications and those have to be worked out.
Seems like a strong case to me that if you get married in Massachusetts, say, and then move to Texas, that you’d have reason to think that federally your marriage is still legal.
Higgs Boson's Mate
@Roger Moore:
Ahhh. Thank you. All that my pea brain picked up was “DOMA struck down.” Seems like a modest victory then with the most pernicious parts of DOMA still in force.
AHH onna Droid
The more I think about vra, the angrier I get. Today is poisoned. DONT MOURN, ORGANIZE. But I’m in tears right now.
YoohooCthulhu
@eemom:
Ahh, yes, but now that DOMAs been invalidated, wait for the full faith and credit challenge. I think it’s becoming increasingly unlikely that those gay marriage bans are going to be able to apply to people gay-married in other states.
Margarita
This is from the DOMA decision, not Prop. 8, but Scalia’s dissent actually contains the phrase:
Christ, what an asshole.
Matt McIrvin
@Higgs Boson’s Mate: No. Only Section 3 of DOMA was at issue. Section 2, which explicitly says states are free to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages, still stands.
Also, my understanding is that full faith and credit has never generally been understood to mean that states have to recognize marriages that are valid in other states. Some of them do anyway, for cases such as cousin marriage, ages of consent, common-law marriage, etc., but it’s not a federal requirement.
There was never a federal case challenging this for the case of interracial marriage; Loving v. Virginia just struck down all the bans instead.
AHH onna Droid
#standwithwendy
#ridewithjohnlewis
#stoparpaio
#endh8
#fuckracism
#solidarityforever
AHH onna Droid
@YoohooCthulhu: I asked about that on LGM. Short answer: Const gives Congr the right to determine how ffc is applied.
Cacti
@Higgs Boson’s Mate:
It is a victory, just not a total victory.
The actual case or controversy clause of Article III requires the full faith and credit challenge to be brought by a party for whom this is a tangible issue, rather than a hypothetical one.
Patricia Kayden
@AHH onna Droid: Well today is great for positive movement on gay rights, but yes I agree that yesterday’s VRA ruling was ugly.
Mnemosyne
So, okay, here’s a question for our resident IRS and tax lawyers:
Since same-sex marriages will now be recognized by the federal government, isn’t this going to mess up state tax returns in states that don’t recognize it? How are they going to be able to insist that a couple filing as “married” on their federal forms have to file as “single” on their state forms?
Obviously, those few states without a state income tax won’t have to worry, but I can see the various tax franchise boards of states that banned gay marriage having to do some major scrambling right now to figure out how to work that out.
Higgs Boson's Mate
@Matt McIrvin:
Thank you. It looks, to me anyway, that someone will have to mount a 14th Amendment challenge to laws prohibiting gay marriage. Not sure if this SCOTUS would even hear the case.
Mnemosyne
@AHH onna Droid:
I don’t know if this will help, but starting to work NOW on getting a better Congress in 2014 will help with both the VRA issue and the lingering issues from this decision, so there’s no conflict between the two. The actions that will help one will also help with the other, so get moving.
Roger Moore
@Higgs Boson’s Mate:
I’m not personally affected (being neither married nor gay) but it seems to me that the federal recognition stuff was at least as pernicious as the full faith and credit stuff. With state level non-recognition, there’s a growing list of states that will recognize same sex couples’ out of state marriages, and at least there’s the imperfect option of staying in states that do recognize same sex marriage. With federal non-recognition, same sex couples didn’t even have that limited list of options.
Matt McIrvin
@Forum Transmitted Disease: If there’s one thing I’ve noticed about politics over the years, it’s that people like to support winners. Progressives constantly get this idea that it’s wrong or dangerous to celebrate a win when you lost something else, or there are still injustices in the world. But we need this.
It is, though, important to not let this turn into some kind of dumb minorities vs. gays fight, like the aftermath of Prop. 8’s passage in the 2012 election. On the whole the VRA ruling is probably a bigger loss for justice than DOMA is a gain.
My grounds for hope there is what happened in 2016 after states not covered by VRA preclearance started passing onerous restrictions: massive countermobilization. But the reminder that it’s possible to win something always helps.
trollhattan
Having had a front-row bleacher seat for Prop 8’s entire lifecycle–egg, larva, pupa, not-terribly-adult–all I can say is Suck it, Mormon and Catholic sacks of cash dedicated to fucking with others’ lives. I hope your sad tears of defeat are worth every dollar.
Their dishonest campaign and vile defense since the election moved me from the “shrug” category to the supporter category WRT marriage equality. What I saw was bullying, pure and simple, and I hate bullies. During the campaign, the local paper had an article about a suburban Mormon dad who ponied up FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS to donate to Prop 8. He wasn’t a zillionaire so was basically stealing the money from his quite large Mormon family solely for the purpose of fucking with the lives of others. That was my “Schiavo moment.”
None of this makes up for yesterday, but we take our little triumphs where we can.
eemom
@AHH onna Droid:
I completely agree with you, and I’m even a little distressed at all the cheering going on.
Yesterday was fucking devastating.
Roger Moore
@Mnemosyne:
I wouldn’t think this would be a problem. State tax laws have all kinds of rules that are different from the federal rules; they just make doing taxes harder for the people who are affected. They just say that the rules about who can claim married status are different, and away they go. Or, to put it another way, this is just the mirror image of the way things were before the ruling, in which some states allowed same sex couples who were legally married under state law to file as married even though they couldn’t do so on their federal returns.
beergoggles
@Mnemosyne: Filing taxes won’t be that much different from how SS couples in states where SSM was legal before had to file. Thew could file their state taxes as married and their federal taxes as single. In several cases we would have to prepare two state tax forms for such couples where one was married and the other was single and then use the results from the single filing forms to prepare the federal tax forms. The IRS will have to determine whether they will recognize the legal marriages of SS couples in states where SSM is not legal for tax purposes and we will have to go from there.
Matt McIrvin
@Mnemosyne: No, federal recognition of same-sex marriage only applies to states where it is recognized at the state level. I’m pretty sure this means that, say, a married couple who move to a state where their marriage is not recognized will still have to file as single.
Forum Transmitted Disease
@Matt McIrvin: I get your point but this sentence of yours grinds me. Marriage is a luxury. Being able to vote – have a voice in the society you live in – is not a luxury. It’s an absolute necessity. And I am glad for my gay friends today, I am, but they are by and large privileged people who’ve just been given another hand up a ladder, a ladder they really didn’t need help climbing.
The millions of people who will be disenfranchised by the gutting of the VRA are mostly people who have never been given a hand, save perhaps the back of one to the face.
Darkrose
@eemom: You have to take your victories where you can. I’m still pissed as fuck about Shelby, but knowing that my wife can get my Social Security benefits if something happens to me is going to let me breathe a little easier when we go to buy a house.
Scout211
FYI: Kamala Harris, our Attorney General is holding a 10:30 am press conference. Hopefully, she will explain what this ruling means and how the state will proceed.
All county clerks are ready for late hours as soon as there is a green light.
Woot!!
Omnes Omnibus
@Forum Transmitted Disease: I am capable of being simultaneously happy and upset.
Cacti
@Forum Transmitted Disease:
I also can’t help but remember how immediately and vocally black voters were blamed for the passage of prop 8, despite making up only 10% of the CA electorate when it was on the ballot.
hrumpole
Right. Standing is jurisdictional under Article III’s cases and controversy requirement–in English, federal courts only decide real beefs between people who are really affected. If the beef doesn’t exist, then there’s no case and unlike other issues, you never waive that requirement. So the state had standing (that ruling “stands”) but the rest as a legal matter don’t exist because the court was consitutionally barred from hearing them.
This doctrine has been used numerous times to avoid things that the court would rather not decide.
burnspbesq
@Punchy:
No, dickhead.
Burnsie is here to remind gay-married folks who want to amend their past Federal income tax returns to claim join-filing status to get their asses in gear before the statute of limitations runs out.
Darkrose
@Forum Transmitted Disease: If we weren’t married, my wife wouldn’t have health insurance that covered her medication. Being married in the eyes of the federal government means she’ll at least get Social Security benefits if something happens to me. There are all sorts of ramifications for same-sex couplesd with children. Maybe marriage is a luxury for you and the people you know. For some of us, it’s a necessity.
eemom
@Omnes Omnibus:
….and of dignified and moderated expression regarding both.
This is an attribute upon which those of us genetically predisposed to wailing and rending of garments, can only gaze and marvel.
Darkrose
@burnspbesq: Is that, in fact, going to be something we can do retroactively?
Dear gods, what a mess.
Matt McIrvin
@Cacti: I still see Californians blaming black voters for Prop. 8. I think it was all on the basis of unwarranted extrapolations from a low-sample-size crosstab in one CNN poll.
Hal
Damn some of you are such fucking Debbie downers. Every step forward is something to celebrate.
eemom
@Darkrose:
And I am very happy for you, of course, and for many SS couples that are my friends. One of my college classmates and his husband were Prop 8 plaintiffs.
I dunno. Just wish this country didn’t have to suck so bad.
Forum Transmitted Disease
@Darkrose: I don’t know what to tell you. I’m glad this has worked out for you, and for many people I know.
Face
My fear was that if the SC ruled that gay marriage must be recognized in every state, you’d see the very real threat of violence against gays, you’d see the repeal of anti-discrimination laws, and probably even a few Deep South politicians float pro-discrimination laws against gays. Because nobody does 4-grade-style retaliation antics quite like the modern GOP.
grandpa john
@Mnemosyne: interesting. I know that here in SC the state tax form simply uses the Fed tax information and deductions etc.
Cacti
@Matt McIrvin:
Blaming “the blacks” for every problem great or small is one of the oldest traditions in American politics.
Ask your average winger what caused the last stock market crash, and the answer will be some form of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac approving too many home loans for undeserving black people (is there any other kind?).
Matt McIrvin
@burnspbesq:
Now that is interesting, an angle I had not heard of before, and one with potential application to people I know. Do you think it will be feasible? I guess somebody has to try it.
Roger Moore
@Forum Transmitted Disease:
But the VRA ruling is something indirect that we can still fight against. Throwing out Section IV doesn’t disenfranchise anyone; it just gives people who want to disenfranchise others an easier route to do so. We still have the ability to fight against proposed new laws through the political process and in court through Section II. Most of those new rules are likely to be indirect measures that put obstacles in the way of voting, so we can try to fight them by helping voters get around the obstacles. And we can do our best to pass a replacement for Section IV that would resuscitate Section V. It’s an uphill fight, but at least we still can fight.
In contrast, the marriage equality rulings today do grant rights immediately and without any plausible way of stopping them. Same sex couples in California may be getting married as early as today, and married couples can immediately challenge unfair treatment by the federal government. And there’s really nothing that opponents of marriage equality can do about either ruling. That’s a big, real win, and the people who benefit, and the people who have helped to get them there, deserve a chance to celebrate.
burnspbesq
@Forum Transmitted Disease:
The only way anybody will be disenfranchised as a result of yesterday’s ruling is if we sit idly and allow it to happen.
Individuals and DOJ can still sue under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the same as they have always been able to do in states that weren’t subject to pre-clearance.
More importantly, people have to organize and devote time, effort, and money to making sure that people who want to vote can surmount whatever crazy, Kafkaesqe bureaucratic hurdles that wingnut state legislators try to erect, and make it clear to those same wingnut state legislators that fucking with voting rights is a bad career move.
If you don’t have the stomach or the stamina for a long, hard struggle, that’s fine, but kindly GTFOTW.
Matt McIrvin
@Face: I didn’t have that fear because I didn’t for a moment believe that this Supreme Court would rule same-sex marriage legal everywhere.
Brachiator
@beergoggles:
Actually, the demise of DOMA may have a big impact on federal income taxes in states where same sex marriages are recognized. Under present law, a same sex couple has to file separate federal returns, but they must also (in California and some other states) apply community property rules and allocate their income using Form 8958. This was hugely unfair in some cases. For example, a same sex married couple with kids in which only one person worked could not file as head of household on the wage earner’s federal return because both persons were deemed to have “earned” half of the community income.
The IRS is going to be very, very, busy, digesting the implications of this ruling.
burnspbesq
@Matt McIrvin:
I can’t think of a single reason why it wouldn’t be feasible. There is recent precedent that is pretty favorable, in cases involving the telecommunications excise tax.
If a client asked me whether to file amended returns, I would probably say that it’s not a slam dunk but there’s no downside to trying it. The IRS may fight the first few, but if they start losing they’ll stop fighting.
Michael G
The prop 8 ruling is kind of lame–we got the right result, but in a retarded way. You probably could have guessed this by the fact that Scalia voted for it.
First, it’s weak that we got a technical ruling, not a constitutional one, which would have been much better for the country.
Second, the technical ruling basically is to weakens the California proposition system.
I wish Sotomayor would have given her own dissenting opinion; it would have been enlightening.
celticdragonchick
@eemom:
Those of us with a dog in this fight needed this victory. If our happiness is upsetting you, then understand it is not intentional. In any event, kindly refrain from trying to ruin it for the rest of us, please.
Brachiator
@Darkrose:
Yes. If necessary, talk to a good CPA, tax attorney or Enrolled Agent.
The better tax practitioners in California had alerted their gay clients to the implications of a favorable Supreme Court ruling. There was also discussion about this in the better tax law seminars.
patroclus
Today’s holdings are good news indeed – Prop 8 is effectively gone and Californians can get gay married soon; increasing the number of states with marriage equality to 13; and the federal benefit aspect of DOMA is gone meaning that gay married people will no longer be denied federal benefits. As a gay man, I am very very pleased. The full faith and credit aspect of DOMA will still need to be litigated and we’ve got 37 more states to go, but overall this was very positive news.
But yesterday’s destruction of the VRA is still awful – my 89-year old mother just got disenfranchised yesterday because she doesn’t drive anymore and has no state ID and she lives in Texas. So, as of now, she can’t vote – absentee or otherwise. She can spend some money and get an ID, but that effectively means there is a poll tax and she’s a penny pincher and might not do it. She also can’t walk very well, so if getting an ID means she has to go down to the County Courthouse, that’s another disincentive.
I live in Illinois and still can’t get gay married because the legislature recently adjourned without even a vote. But it’s coming if we continue to organize and work. But I now must travel to Texas to go help my mother regain the right to vote.
cthulhu
It will be interesting to so if the dead-enders in CA try to continue to gum up the works. It could be interpreted that the ruling only applies to the two couples bringing suit (and within the two counties: Alameda and Los Angeles); if the case had been filed as a class action, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. But obviously, at this point, gay marriage has both popular and political majorities so I imagine Brown/Harris could easily justify an executive order to the county registrars. Are there Federal district judges in CA that might issue an injunction against such an approach? Seems unlikely but who knows. What Kamala Harris has to say about it at 10:30PDT should be very helpful to figure out how state officials plan to approach this and whether marriage equality starts again in the CA with just two couples or whether any couple can now get married today.
Ah the first part of the question is answered. Brown has issued the executive order: http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=18111
catclub
@Violet: “Seems like a strong case to me that if you get married in Massachusetts, say, and then move to Texas, that you’d have reason to think that federally your marriage is still legal.”
But more importantly, if you have a legal male-female marriage in massachusetts that is honored in Texas, but a legal same sex marriage in massachusetts that is NOT honored in Texas, there is a problem.
On the other hand, people can be licensed to practice law in mass but not in texas. Texas could choose to recognize NO marriages from mass.
Sad_Dem
@Napoleon: That’s my understanding too. Not a state’s rights issue but one of standing. A classic appellate court means of sidestepping a controversial issue.
celticdragonchick
@patroclus:
You may want to inform her of this pronto:
DPS is issuing free voter ID cards starting today.
Sad_Dem
@catclub: “Texas could choose to recognize NO marriages from mass.” Bills to that effect in 3, 2, 1…
catclub
@Sad_Dem: And the texans will be laughing until mass turns around and does the same to texas. The registrars of marriages in both states will be the winners.
Additional fees!
celticdragonchick
More…
To qualify for an EIC, applicants must be:
A U.S. citizen;
A Texas resident;
Eligible to vote in Texas (show a valid voter registration card or submit a voter registration application when applying for the EIC); and
17 years and 10 months or older.
Beginning June 26, individuals may apply for an EIC by visiting a Texas driver license office and completing an EIC application (DL-14C). Applicants must also bring the following items to the office to verify U.S. citizenship and identity.
The EIC receipt an individual receives will include their photo and can be used for voting until the permanent card is delivered by mail.
The EIC is free of charge to qualifying applicants and is valid for six years. There is no expiration date of an EIC for citizens 70 years of age or older.
The EIC can only be used for the purpose of voting in an election and may not be used as personal identification.
Residents with a documented disability may apply at their county voter registrar for a permanent exemption from the photo ID requirement. If approved, they will not need a photo ID to vote. Also, if individuals are voting by mail, they do not have to submit a photo ID.
Yatsuno
@Brachiator:
Yup. Huge IRM changes are gonna be coming down the pike, plus expansion of programs like EITC and innocent spouse/injured spouse. All at a time when the IRS still can’t hire. WHEEEE!!!!
patroclus
@celticdragonchick: That’s good news, but I assume that she’ll have to go down to the DPS office by taxi (which will cost money) and she’ll probably have to send off for a birth certificate (from Malden, Massachusetts) which will take time and her desire to do all of that is not high at the moment. I’m thinking a visit by her son from Chicago might be necessary for the Roberts 5’s blatant disenfranchisement to be overcome.
Roger Moore
@cthulhu:
They have already promised to do just that. My guess is that there will have to be another lawsuit to force the ruling to apply to everyone, but it should be a slam dunk, since the CA Supreme Court and US District Court have already ruled that Prop 8 is unconstitutional and are extremely unlikely to overturn their existing rulings. It’s end-game stall tactics, and everyone knows it. I would still like to see a ballot proposition to overturn Prop 8, just to stick a few more nails in the coffin.
Roger Moore
@catclub:
No way. One of the goals is to selectively discriminate against Teh Ghey just to make the hate as clear as possible. They won’t go nuclear and refuse to recognize any marriage from a marriage equality state until there’s no alternative, i.e. the Supreme Court rules on the full faith and credit part of DOMA.
celticdragonchick
@patroclus:
Do what you need to do. She should not let this stop her from voting.
eemom
@celticdragonchick:
See my comment at 72. And piss your gun-loving ass off.
burnspbesq
@Higgs Boson’s Mate:
Today’s ruling only affects Section 3 of DOMA. Now it’s time for somebody to challenge Section 2, which in effect says that states that don’t allow gay marriage don’t have to give full faith and credit to other states’ gay marriages.
Trollhattan
Nancy SMASH re. Michele Bachmann’s sweet tears over DOMA:
“Who cares?”
Heh.
patroclus
@celticdragonchick: Well, she had a series of strokes last fall and was in a nursing home for 5 months and only recently has moved back to her assisted living facility, so just getting up and making it to the cafeteria every day is much higher on her priority list than politics and voting. In her prime, she was a pioneering professional woman, starting her career in the late 1940’s and providing dietary consulting to hospitals and nursing homes all over Texas and, of course, was and is a very liberal Democrat. But given the direction of Texas politics and yesterday’s horrific ruling, she’s pretty much given up on politics and based on my last conversation with her, she really doesn’t care much about that. We’ll see – but I wouldn’t count on her exercising her franchise much anymore.
I only mentioned it because someone upthread was claiming that the horrendous holding in Shelby didn’t disenfranchise anyone. It certainly disenfranchised my mother – maybe forever.
fidelio
Given that Section 4 of the VRA was very specific about which states were subject to the preclearance requirement, and that this didn’t inclide places like the entire state of Florida or Tennessee or Kansas or any of the other places toying with restrictive legislation on voting these days, we might even look at this as a chance to extend preclearance to all states. That will take a lot of work, but problematic voting legislation is not limited to the Deep South these days, and if we’re willing to put our backs into the effort maybe we can get something better than the old Section 4 passed.
They can’t say preclearance is unfair if it applies to everyone…(well, they can, but whiners gonna whine).
celticdragonchick
@eemom:
Anything to cheer you up, you little ray of malignant sunshine.
burnspbesq
I think that as a result of Prop 8’s demise, the California Supreme Court’s opinion in In re Marriage Cases is once again good law. If that’s correct, then all Californians have the right to marry whoever they damn well please.
celticdragonchick
@eemom:
Oh, and since politeness doesn’t work with you, go fuck yourself sideways,you sanctimonious whiney-ass useless miserable wretched excuse of a bitch.
But be sure to have a nice day.
Love,
Me.
Brachiator
@Matt McIrvin:
Here is an example of the practical advice alerts going out to tax practitioners in California to help them deal with some of the implications of today’s Supreme Court decision:
This would apply to those couples in California who had been able to marry as same sex couples, and to those who are Registered Domestic Partners under California law.
cthulhu
@Roger Moore:
Technically CSC ruled against Prop 22 saying it conflicted with equality clauses in the state Constitution. That opened the original door which Prop 8 shut by amending the state Constitution. Whether the CSC could or would take issue with Brown’s executive order approach, I don’t know. There certainly won’t be any push back from the legislature as they have long been in majority support. I think this leaves NOM, etc., with trying to get amenable judges to issue injunctions using the whatever ambiguity exists in the system.
? Martin
@fidelio:
And I don’t think the court would. I think that was in fact the point – that Section 4 treated states unequally. That a state instituting new forms of discrimination or discriminating against new groups (latinos in AZ, or other groups) would never be brought in under Section 5 because of the way that Section 4 works. So, preclear everyone, or preclear no-one, or preclear based on a set of rules that is more fluid and responsive to voting rights of all groups.
I never liked how Section 4 was done. I think it should apply to everyone. I think it’s notable that SCOTUS left Section 5 alone, as removing that would have been vastly worse. With Dems running the House, I’d be happy with this decision. With the GOP there, I’m far from hopeful that we will find lemonade at the end.
Persia
@Darkrose: And let’s once again point out that there are plenty of non-white gay people. This isn’t a zero-sum game, ffs.
burnspbesq
Here is a link to AG Harris’ letter to Gov. Brown.
http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/ht/ag_prop_8_letter.pdf?
Sound bite version: gay marriage statewide, as soon as Judge Walker’s injunction goes into effect (that will take somewhere from a few days to a couple of weeks, while the Ninth Circuit issues an order vacating its decision in compliance with the Supreme Court’s order).
Scout211
@burnspbesq:
Kamala Harris just now: “I urge the ninth circuit to lift the stay as quickly as possible.”
Trollhattan
http://www.sacbee.com/#storylink=cpy
Please
arguediscuss amongst yourselves.burnspbesq
@Scout211:
Interesting. IIRC, Judge Walker stayed his own injunction pending appeal. I wonder if he can dissolve the stay without waiting to formally hear from the Ninth Circuit.
? Martin
I have two sets of friends at the courthouse right now.
Roger Moore
@fidelio:
I like the idea of extending preclearance to everyone, but I think it still makes sense to have an out for jurisdictions that avoid discriminating for some length of time. The rule would be something like:
1) Every jurisdiction starts needing preclearance under Section V.
2) Any jurisdiction can get off the preclearance list by not having election laws overturned under the VRA for a set period of time, e.g. 7 or 10 years.
3) Any jurisdiction that is off the preclearance list goes back on the list if it has its election rules overturned under the VRA.
This kind of rule ought to satisfy the requirement that preclearance not be based on misdeeds from a long time ago. Any jurisdiction can get off the list by keeping its nose clean, and any jurisdiction can wind up on the bad list by backsliding.
eemom
@celticdragonchick:
Sticks and stones, snookums. I like being a “bitch.”
Don’t let the door hit your misogynist ass on the way out.
celticdragonchick
@eemom:
Who said I am leaving?
You really are precious. I’m a bitch three days out of any given four and I freely admit it. You are just a poor excuse for one.
Cacti
@? Martin:
Ummm…latinos are not new to Arizona, nor are attempts to interfere with their voting rights.
In the late 1950s and early 60s, late Chief Justice Rehnquist was director of “ballot security operations” for the Phoenix GOP. He would travel to predominantly latino voting precincts to administer literacy tests for the purpose of disqualifying voters.
Sister Rail Gun of Warm Humanitarianism
@Persia:
Of whom Darkrose herself is Exhibit A.
(You should hit her site, BTW. Her response to yesterday’s decision was to write a story. Yummy.)
Darkrose
@Michael G: The California proposition system SHOULD be weakened. The idea that civil rights can be subject to popular vote is insane, not to mention the way the process has been completely hijacked by corporate money. The reason we have a full-time legislature is for THEM to vote on this stuff, not random people who may be throwing their hands up and saying, “Screw it; I’m gonna vote no on everything because I don’t have time to go through the text of 10 ballot initiatives and figure out what they all mean.”
Darkrose
@Sister Rail Gun of Warm Humanitarianism: *g* Thanks for the rec, darling. *hugs*
Roger Moore
@Darkrose:
+Eleventy.