Comments on: One Third of US Senators sponsor repeal of DOMA

By: Charles

Charles — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 14:41:57 +0000

My guess is that the Supreme Court will correct this issue in the near future.

By: Charles

Charles — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 14:38:57 +0000

It is sad that no Republicans are on the list.

By: StraightGrandmother

StraightGrandmother — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 13:40:53 +0000

Boy this would sure be nice. If you lived in Texas you could take a vacation to Connecticut and get married. Then, no matter where you moved (you move back to Texas) your Federal Government considers you married for Federal benefits.

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 12:25:32 +0000

I assume the second half in a) refers to marriages from other countries?

By: JCF

JCF — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 07:24:26 +0000

Michiganians, contact Sen. Debbie Stabenow! I don’t understand why she’s not already a co-sponsor.

By: Donny D.

Donny D. — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 04:36:28 +0000

A small thing: Feinstein’s first name is spelled Dianne.

By: Brian

Brian — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 01:09:41 +0000

(duh. taxes. would finally not be a nightmare for us with both federal and state recognition, but would not be uniform with all LGBT in all states)

By: Brian

Brian — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 01:07:50 +0000

Let me see if I’ve got this straight (so to speak): even if this were to pass into law heaven help us if

1) employment required us to relocate to a non-friendly state

2) we must travel through a non-friendly state and we suffer some life-threatening accident

3) we have to file taxes anywhere

4) it’s Tuesday

By: Rillion

Rillion — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 00:52:45 +0000

My reading is that:

A state would still be able to not recognize your marriage, it will take the Supreme Court ruling to force states to recognize gay marriages from other states.

The Federal Goverment will recognize any marriage as long as it was legal in the state where it was entered into. So for example since you were married in MA, the Federal Government would continue to recognize you as married even if you moved to a state that would not recognize your marriage. So in effect it could be the opposite of now where a state will recognize a marriage but not the Feds, you will have some marriages recognized by the Feds but not by the state where the couple lives (assuming they traveled and got married in a state where gay marriage was legal).

See perfectly clear (joking)

By: Brian

Brian — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 00:06:47 +0000

Because I’m not sharp enough to get all the legal implications does this mean:

1) my MA same-sex marriage would be federally recognized

and

2) there might still be states that can choose to bar same-sex marriage for their residents, even while they must recognize mine?