Just curious: What will DOMA decision mean for federal employees, military families, etc...

[Libertas1776]

Just curious, what exactly will be the effects of the DOMA decision on say a gay, married federal employee who gets transferred to a state which does not recognize his marriage? Could he or she request not to transfer due to the discrimination they could face?

What about gay military members and military families? What if they are placed in or transferred to a military base that is in a state that does not recognize marriage? What about bases overseas where families live with them, say in Europe? If they were married in a gay marriage state, is their relationship recognized and family housing offered? The same, I suppose, could be said of overseas jobs for non military Federal jobs.


Any opinions? Thoughts? Points? It certainly is interesting to think about.

[cynatnite]

1. As I understand it, the federal govt. will now recognize gay marriage as being equal to straight.

It changes everything and makes marriage equality more likely in states where it's not legal.

[Puzzledtraveller]

2. in the states it is legal

I know that goes without saying.

[cynatnite]

3. Yes, thank you. I edited my post. n/t

[Savannahmann]

4. IF you married your partner in a state that recognizes Gay Marriage.

All federal benefits that go to traditional marriage couples will go to you as well. Taxes, inheritance, all marriage benefits. But that only applies if you are married in a state that recognizes same sex marriage.

Now, the next battle, state recognition. Somewhere as we speak, someone is filing a lawsuit that the state of (Insert one of the 37 here) does not recognize your spouse, and you want to get a divorce. You can't get a divorce in this state, despite being a resident with your spouse, because your marriage is not recognized. Then transportability will be argued, and recognition of other states jurisdictions over such matters, and then it will be argued that it should be legal in all states.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

15. And not just divorce cases, either.

One partner dies, and the other wants the privileges accorded to a surviving spouse -- statutory allowances, homestead protection, and so forth.

If anyone in the Houston area is now or may soon be in this boat, give me a ring.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. A gay service member will be able to enroll his or her life partner

In tricare, get housing benefits...not be discriminated when the service member dies and get benefits.

It is huge.

[Recursion]

6. I can answer as far as the State Department's Foreign Service goes

I'm the spouse of a Foreign Service Officer (we're a straight couple) and this has been an issue for some of our friends. State recognized gay marriages I believe in 2009. Before then, same-sex spouses could travel and live with an FSO but did not get a work visa (I'll get a work visa when we go to Mumbai later this year so I'll be able to get a job on the local economy). They also were not evacuated with Embassy personnel in an emergency but were on their own. This happened a few times, and it was worse because the FSO was ordered out because of his security clearance and his husband had to get out on his own.

The State Department absolutely has to stand up for full accreditation of diplomats and their families at all times, because that way lies madness (if Saudi Arabia refuses to accredit a gay diplomat, will Jewish diplomats be next? etc.) However, FSOs and their families are still bound by local law (diplomatic immunity isn't what a lot of people think it is). The result is an uneasy truce where states like Saudi Arabia simply accredit whomever we present and don't ask any questions.

As a practical question, countries where a gay couple's safety couldn't be assured generally are for other reasons considered "hardship" posts to begin with, which means the families don't travel with the diplomat.

[frazzled]

7. But best of all ...

Glenn Greenwald can come home to the US. Doesn't have to live in Brazil anymore. No more claiming that he can't because of his partner. Well, they'll have to get married. But bi-national couples can not now be denied visas.

This does open the door for bi-national same-sex couples to be treated equally under the law. That means that comprehensive immigration reform probably need not include a provision specifically tailored to making sure bi-national partners of same-sex couples can get visas automatically, the same as opposite-sex partners. As Paul Smith, a partner at Jenner & Block and arguably the leading gay rights litigator in the country (he won Lawrence v. Texas, overturning state bans on gay sex), told me, “My understanding is that the elimination of DOMA would by itself mean that all bi-national married couples would have the same rights, whether same sex or not.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/26/the-supreme-court-struck-down-doma-heres-what-you-need-to-know/

What are you waiting for, Glenn?

[BanTheGOP]

8. Churches that do not allow gay marriages will now be subject to taxation!

This, to me, is the BIGGEST win for our side as we can now force churches to marry those other than male/female unions at the risk of losing their tax-exempt status. It will be a lot easier to challeng church taxation policies in this regard.

[monmouth3]

9. That I did not know and now I like it even more. Time to tax all churches IMO..n/t

[kestrel91316]

10. This is baloney. Nobody is going to force churches to engage in any religious rituals they

don't want to. AND YOU KNOW IT.

[BanTheGOP]

11. With DOMA repealed, we not only have the right to FORCE churches to take in gay marriage...

...we have the progressive duty to do so.

[kestrel91316]

12. FAIL. Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.

We have no RIGHT, and progressives have no such duty.

Eff off, troll.

[Chan790]

13. Thank you.

It really is the worst kind of trolling.

[Liberal Veteran]

14. That's just ridiculous.

No church is forced to marry people against their own doctrine. Nor should they be.

In providing public services, it is a different matter, but they free to set their own rules about who can marry in their church (just like Catholics are free to prevent divorced people from remarrying).

[Libertas1776]

16. Thanks for all the replies, everyone.