WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will take up California’s ban on same-sex marriage, a case that could give the justices the chance to rule on whether gay Americans have the same constitutional right to marry as heterosexuals.
The justices said Monday they will review a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the state’s gaymarriage ban, though on narrow grounds. The San Francisco-based appeals court said the state could not take away the same-sex marriage right that had been granted by California’s Supreme Court.
The court also will decide whether Congress can deprive legally married gay couples of federal benefits otherwise available to married people. A provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act limits a range of health and pension benefits, as well as favorable tax treatment, to heterosexual couples.
This should be a no-brainer–
14th Amendment, section 1
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I agree, the vote should be 9/0 but there are strict conservatives on the bench and they think their way is more important than the rights of individuals.
Nice read but it has nothing to do with marriage…
You are correct it doesn’t say anything about marriage. But it does say “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.”
When a couple legally married in one state moves to another state and their marriage is no longer valid that it is a State depriving a “person of life, liberty or property without due process of law” and it also denies that couple of the “equal protection of the laws.”
And while you are thinking that over add the fact that contracts (and a marriage is a contract) are enforceable across state lines.
Ah but it does. Marriage is a contract in the eyes of the IRS. Taxes are administered through tax law–notice the law part. Denying gays the right to marry is denying a segment of our citizenry equal protection of the laws, just like it reads in the Constitution. Case closed.
BUT DOMA has everything to do with abridging privileges. My SS Spouse and I were legally married in NH a year ago; my sister and her husband were also married in NH. We both have exactly the same marriage license, but the Federal DOMA denys me all of my Federal benefits – over $6000 on Federal Incomes Taxes last year alone. Where’s the equal protection under the 14th Amendment here?
6K diff? ur part of the 1% that doesn’t count.
You are advocating a change in the tax laws?
Good luck with that!
No. I am advocating repeal of DOMA so I can simply click the box Married Filing Jointly. Just for giggles, I recalculated my taxes for last (TurboTax) and with checking the married box and factoring in my spouse (age 79), my refund increased by about $6000.
Except that States with Federal help deny rights and privileges from classes of people all the time. 18 to 21 years old citizens, Alcohol restriction. In Maine people under guardianship can not vote. People over 35 are prohibited from joining the military, and people under 35 are prohibited from becoming President. In criminal cases, children do not have the right to trial by jury, nor do they have the right to face their accuser.
There are a number of very undemocratic “exceptions” to the 14th amendment.
As predicted. Let’s hope that the rulings are favorable to equal rights and SSM.
Can we count on the Supremes to up hold the Constitution on the federal level? Gods knows democracy is under extremely vicious attacks at the state levels.