U.S. Supreme Court Tackles Same-Sex Marriage, Day 1 of 2

[Skyth]

I'd love not to have to figure out how to do state-required community property on two separate "single" federal returns next year, so fingers crossed.

It involves doing the Federal return as it would be if you were MFJ, putting the information into the state return, then going back and doing two seperate returns as single for the Federal return.  (RTRP here )

[sailor]

--A guess that SCOTUS will deny standing to Prop 8 supporters, so that the court doesn't yet have to deal with the broader question of whether gays and lesbians have a right to same-sex marriage. Which is still a win for gay folks, because then same-sex marriage becomes legal in another state--California, the most populous in the nation

 
Uh, I don't think so.

If the proponents of Prop 8 don't have standing that quashes the 9th Circus ruling.  Personally, I think the Court is leery of creating another Roe v Wade type case. They don't want to deal with 40 or more years of cases on the issue and would rather let the political system continue to make it legal.

It's a win for the two couples who fought to get married, but that ruling doesn't extend beyond them. Every other couple that want's to get married has to go to court and get it's own ruling.

Also of interest:

http://www.volokh.com/2013/03/27/the-timing-of-the-same-sex-marriage-case-and-bickels-passive-virtues/

[Jack]

It involves doing the Federal return as it would be if you were MFJ, putting the information into the state return, then going back and doing two seperate returns as single for the Federal return.  (RTRP here )

My state doesn't have income tax, but does have special rules for community property for married couples. I know it involves adding our incomes together and then dividing; I looked into it this year. I'm just not sure what that's going to mean for pretax benefits, deducting adoption expenses, small business stuff, all that. I'll probably end up going to a professional next year if DOMA isn't fixed, to be on the safe side.

[Altair]

If the proponents of Prop 8 don't have standing that quashes the 9th Circus ruling.  

Yes, it does--which means Judge Vaughn Walker's original ruling in the case stands, Prop 8 is overturned, and SSM is legal again in CA.

I think that's why SCOTUS is so likely to deny standing. If they want to stay out of the fight for now--and it seems that they do--this is arguably the way to move forward that limits the court's involvement and preserves their leeway for future action on this issue. It would still be a win for gays, adding another state to the marriage equality map, and the most important one at that.

It's a win for the two couples who fought to get married, but that ruling doesn't extend beyond them. Every other couple that want's to get married has to go to court and get it's own ruling.

I've heard that argument, but I've also heard (more often) that it would apply broadly across California. It seems to be a bit of a murky point, but the absurdity of every same-sex couple having to bring the same case to the court system in order to get married would resolve itself pretty quickly, I'm confident, into a statewide rule.

[Lokabrenna]

I've heard that argument, but I've also heard (more often) that it would apply broadly across California. It seems to be a bit of a murky point, but the absurdity of every same-sex couple having to bring the same case to the court system in order to get married would resolve itself pretty quickly, I'm confident, into a statewide rule.

Fingers crossed for today's DOMA arguments! It's a full moon tonight, but hopefully the justices will act rationally.

Optimism!

[Altair]

Fingers crossed for today's DOMA arguments! It's a full moon tonight, but hopefully the justices will act rationally.

Optimism!

I think SCOTUS ditching DOMA Section 3 is more of a sure thing than which way they'll go on Prop 8.

--The prez and his attorney general refuse to defend it because they think it's unconsitutional

--Every lower federal court leading up to this has found it unconstitutional

--Ditching it does nothing to affect the status of SSM in the states where it's not legal, so the justices don't have to worry about creating a right to SSM nationwide

--The states rights argument, which carries great weight with many of the conservative justices, clearly favors dumping DOMA Section 3

--Unlike with Prop 8, there's no referendum involved, so the justices don't have to fret about overriding "the will of the people"

--The effects of DOMA Section 3 are so patently unfair, it's hard to find any justification for it

--If the Supremes really want to let the "experiment in the states" continue, as they seemed to suggest yesterday, it's hard to see how allowing the Federal government to tip the scales in that experiment is permissable or desirable

It will be interesting to see what pretzel logic positions Scalia will contort himself into on this one, while his sidekick Uncle Thomas sits there silently like an Oreo-flavored lump of dubious nutritional value.

[Gaudior]

Fingers crossed for today's DOMA arguments! It's a full moon tonight, but hopefully the justices will act rationally.

Optimism!

 

I hope so too!

[Kira]

The next time somebody suggests my fundamental civil right to marriage equality should be put on the ballot as a popularity contest, I'm going to go all Babylon 5 on them and quote the Vorlons: "The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote."

(OK, I wouldn't really say that. I just wanted to shoehorn that in.)

 
I've never heard that quote before, but it's now officially one of my favourite quotes ever.  

Crossing my fingers for the right outcome here.  I don't really understand how everything works in American politics/courts, and it's driving me crazy that I have to wait until June to hear the verdict, but it's just so insane to me that marriage eqaulity is still an issue that so much energy is put towards.  My 11 year old asked me the other day what all the fuss was about same sex marriage, and I told her that some people think only men and women should be allowed to marry one another, and kind of went through some of the reasons with an eye to telling her why those reasons don't hold water, imho, but she beat me to it with a shrug and the comment of "wow.  That's stupid, Mom.  Love is love.  As long as you love someone, how is that a bad thing?"

Anyway, fingers crossed.  Do the right thing, SCOTUS.

[Lokabrenna]

Anyway, fingers crossed.  Do the right thing, SCOTUS.

I just saw this tweet from Scotusblog:

Final update: #scotus 80% likely to strike down #doma. J Kennedy suggests it violates states’ rights; 4 other Justices see as gay rights.

YES! YES! YES!

[MadZealot]

--Astonishment at how rapidly the landscape has shifted in marriage equality's favor

 
The landscape is changing.  Just found this tidbit.  
Even Fox's Bill O'Reilly noted that gay marriage opponents have been able to do ought else "but thump the Bible."  

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/bill-o-reilly-argument-gay-marriage-compelling-opponents-are-bible-thumpers

[MadZealot]

--The states rights argument, which carries great weight with many of the conservative justices, clearly favors dumping DOMA Section 3

 
I just read a piece suggesting that the Supremes might have 'punted' on Prop 8 just to make a more definitive ruling/statement via DOMA.  

http://reason.com/blog/2013/03/27/what-happens-if-scotus-punts-on-prop-8

[Altair]

I think you probably would, and I'd pay good money to see the expression of the person on the receiving end.

Nope I wouldn't, for two reasons:

1) "Pebbles" reeks of elitism, like Leona Helmsley's immortal "Only the little people pay taxes"

2) It misses the point. Making people's fundamental rights subject to a popularity contest isn't wrong because of the timing; it's *always* wrong to put them up to a vote.

(But the quote is just so juicy, I'd want to say it anyway)

[RedHawk]

Thorough linkage. Thanks!

A decision isn't expected until June...which is why my husband and I are filing for an extension on our tax returns. If DOMA (SCOTUS Tackles SSM, Day 2 of 2--tomorrow) gets struck down in June, it will make a big difference on our 2012 taxes, the first full year we were married.

 
I hope that your Marriage Penalty tax won't be too high. I heard one tax woman on Yahoo state that she's asking her clients, especially those that make a ton of money, to file now because your going to be hit big time.

[RedHawk]

I think SCOTUS ditching DOMA Section 3 is more of a sure thing than which way they'll go on Prop 8.

--The prez and his attorney general refuse to defend it because they think it's unconsitutional

--Every lower federal court leading up to this has found it unconstitutional

--Ditching it does nothing to affect the status of SSM in the states where it's not legal, so the justices don't have to worry about creating a right to SSM nationwide

--The states rights argument, which carries great weight with many of the conservative justices, clearly favors dumping DOMA Section 3

--Unlike with Prop 8, there's no referendum involved, so the justices don't have to fret about overriding "the will of the people"

--The effects of DOMA Section 3 are so patently unfair, it's hard to find any justification for it

--If the Supremes really want to let the "experiment in the states" continue, as they seemed to suggest yesterday, it's hard to see how allowing the Federal government to tip the scales in that experiment is permissable or desirable

It will be interesting to see what pretzel logic positions Scalia will contort himself into on this one, while his sidekick Uncle Thomas sits there silently like an Oreo-flavored lump of dubious nutritional value.

 
But DOMA isn't going away even if they rule that section three is unconstitutional. They have to fully repeal the law for it to go away. Just my two-cents. Of course the outcome will only affect states that allow gay marriage and not stated that don't. I was trying to ask the Professor on Yahoo chat about that and he had to leave and do something called work. I can't wait to have him back on Yahoo chat after DOMA arguments are finished.

Personally, and this is off-topic, I really want to know what the court is going to do in the case of the Indian girl, who is part of my great-grandmother's tribe, that is now living with her Indian father after her non-Indian mother gave her up for adoption and used text messages between her and the father to prove that the father didn't want the baby. Such a sweet little baby and so sad that people care more about themselves then a sweet little angel from above.

[Altair]

I just read a piece suggesting that the Supremes might have 'punted' on Prop 8 just to make a more definitive ruling/statement via DOMA.  

http://reason.com/blog/2013/03/27/what-happens-if-scotus-punts-on-prop-8

From SCOTUSblog's Twitter feed, this analysis of today's DOMA testimony just in:

"Final update: #scotus 80% likely to strike down #doma. J Kennedy suggests it violates states' rights; 4 other Justices see as gay rights."

I like them there odds!