An Amateurish Decoding of the SCOTUS's DOMA Ruling
Let’s put wheels on these dry explanations. Say Maria and Rose tied the
knot in Massachusetts in 2005 and then moved, for some perverse reason, to my
home state, Idaho. Under DOMA, Idaho is not required to regard them as married
or to ensure they receive the same state benefits they enjoyed in Massachusetts
(Section 2). And the 1100+ federal benefits
married couples receive, ranging from social security to estate taxes to immigration?
Maria and Rose never received any, whether they lived in Massachusetts or Idaho
(Section 3).
After the Supreme Court tossed out good ol’ Section 3 of DOMA, same-sex
couples now receive federal recognition of their married status in states that recognize same-sex marriage.
So what are the implications? I list a few below. Before I do, though, let’s be
clear on something: I’m not a lawyer, and I can’t begin to untangle all the
massive implications of the overturning of DOMA. In fact, my understanding of
this issue is pedestrian at best. However, I did a couple hours of research,
and I’m happy to share my findings. Please let me know if I’ve made any
mistakes or overlooked something.
1. In theory, federal employees will
now receive benefits
for their same-sex partners.
2. Same-sex couples
of mixed nationalities will now receive the same considerations as
straight couples when it comes to issuing visas. Here’s a story
about just such a couple; it just might make your heart dribble down your ribs.
 |
| No worries about Bert and Ernie. They live in NY, where same-sex marriage has been legally recognized since 2011. |
3. As far as I understand it, same-sex
couples who marry in states where it’s recognized and then move or return to
states where it isn’t will likely not receive many, if any, federal benefits. Or,
to be more precise, it depends
on which federal benefit and to which state they move. According to
Lambda Legal, “There is no one
rule across all federal agencies. Some agencies look to the law of the state
where a couple married regardless of the law of the state where the couple now
lives, while others look to the law of the state where the couple is living now.”
4. Striking
down Section 3 of DOMA does not mean all of DOMA is dead. Section 2 of DOMA
says it’s just fine for states to pass their own, state versions of DOMA. For
example, South Dakota, the state in which I live, has a law on the books that
actively illegalizes same-sex marriage. If you’re interested in where your
state stands, this graphic
is deliciously thorough. This is another good summary
of state-to-state laws affecting LGBT folks in general. According to MSN, as of
July 2013, “[Thirty-six American] states ban gay marriage outright, and of
those, 31 have passed constitutional amendments that make such marriages
illegal.”
So, in short, the Supreme Court struck
down Section 3 only. This allows for the distribution of federal benefits formerly
denied legally-married same-sex couples. In so ruling, the Supreme Court did
not in any way recognize the legitimacy of same-sex marriages, nor did it ban
states from passing legislation forbidding it.
5. For those who, for whatever reason,
think all same-sex couples can now get married, think again. This ruling doesn't actually affect opportunities for marriage; it allows for federal recognition
of the ones acknowledged by the 13 states that have legalized same-sex marriage. When Section 3 of DOMA blew away on the
winds of equality, it didn’t blast open the door for any same-sex couples previously
denied the right to legally marry. Heck, for folks in the 37 states that haven’t
yet legalized same-sex marriage, the end of DOMA’s Section 3 means very little
to their everyday lives.
On a less Gloomy-Gus note, the
overturning of Proposition 8
effectively made California the thirteenth
state to allow same-sex marriage. That makes up for me tossing buckets of ice
water on your Pride parade, right?
Striking down Section 3 of DOMA was a huge boon for the LGBT movements;
however, it by no means represents the end of the fight for LGBT rights. In my
state, for example, LGBT folks have zero legal rights. Even our
single anti-bullying law is carefully phrased to exclude any mention of
sexuality. We have a lot of work left to do.
If you’re interested in getting involved, below are a few organizations
that need help. (Please feel free to read the comments section for more info on these orgs.) May the rainbow force be with you.
* GLAAD
A friend of mine wrote this in response to my Facebook post linking to this:
ReplyDelete"good article! BUT NO HRC - they are seriously racist and transphobic and really a laughing stock amongst political queers (versus the heteronormative wealthy "nice" gays and lesbians they take their money from). The NGLTF also has some problems to be on the lookout for (including, but not limited to, implicit fatphobia since SW was their sponsor airline before they changed their fat people policy.) and well glaad is fine, but seems more concerned with awarding hetero people awards for being nice to queers than in focusing on queers."