Wow, wow, wow! Changes following DOMA ruling will encompass benefits, taxes, insurance, SS . . .

[bigtree]

. . . looks like a lot will depend on how Justice interprets the ruling and how far the administration intends to go in extending benefits to those who aren't fortunate enough to live in a state which allows same-sex marriage.



"The Obama administration previously extended some federal employment-related benefits to same-sex couples, regardless of marital status, who meet certain standards for domestic partnership.

Those benefits include a variant form of survivor annuity called an “insurable interest” annuity that typically is less valuable than a standard annuity; eligibility to enroll in the Federal Long Term Care Insurance Program, for which there is no government contribution toward premiums; and eligibility as family members for certain employee relocation benefits, among others. Employees also can use sick leave to care for those partners or their children under certain circumstances.

Proposals to grant the full range of federal employment benefits to same-sex domestic partners have made only limited progress in Congress over the years . . .


also,


"Even if DOMA is overturned, many same-sex couples won't receive federal spousal benefits. That's because the majority of states still don't allow same-sex marriage, and federal benefits would likely only be extended to those who are married at a state level and live in a state where that marriage is recognized . . ."

This also means that domestic partnerships and civil unions may not qualify for federal benefits . . .


. . . this ruling should serve as a good basis for individuals who manage to challenge their states' bans on same-sex marriage.

[BP2]

1. Not quite

I disagree

The SCOTUS clearly is deferring power to each state on this matter.

Any court challenge to states that still ban SSM will likely fail based upon that basis handed down by the SCOTUS.

[bigtree]

4. yet, they took the heart out of their argument

. . . which was Congress' 'defense' against same-sex marriage.

[Bluenorthwest]

2. This ruling is great basis to fucking move to a State with equality.

That's going to have to be the case, no time left to fuck around.

[bigtree]

3. sucks if you ever have to move, thereafter, to a state with a ban

. . . unless there can be some Executive order protecting benefits and such and forcing those states to recognize them.

Just like DOMA failed on every angle of logic, these recalcitrant states have very little left to cover their discrimination. I'd expect more suits claiming personal injury from those bans based on this ruling; especially if the administration refuses to make a distinction between 'civil unions' and state-recognized marriages.

Of course, I'm still reading and listening intently to the opinions on the opinions to gauge where the center of the political and legal fight gravitates to next . . .

[justiceischeap]

5. I can't see how states can legally discriminate against LGBT'ers

when the Supreme Court says that it goes against the equal protection clause. So, since I live in Maryland and can legally marry and, should Federal benefits be conveyed to my partner and I, then move to say, Alabama, I wouldn't be protected equally under the law because Alabama doesn't recognize marriage equality. (Boy, that was a run on sentence if I ever saw one)

[bigtree]

6. that's how I see it

There's nothing left in the way of the logic that recognizes the clear discrimination of the marriage bans. The most prominent defense of that discrimination was at the heart and being of the DOMA itself.

That now removed, there appears to be little in the way for individuals to have standing in court to challenge a denial of benefits and other rights that a state might seek to deny them; especially if the Obama Justice Dept now establishes a broad and inclusive schedule of benefits and rights which makes no distinction between 'civil unions' and state-recognized marriages.