5 Justices Skeptical of Ban on Benefits to Gay Spouses

nytimes.com ^ | March 27, 2013 | ADAM LIPTAK and PETER BAKER

[lbryce]

WASHINGTON — A majority of the justices on Wednesday questioned the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, as the Supreme Court took up the volatile issue of same-sex marriage for a second day.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, widely considered the swing vote on the divided court, joined the four liberals in posing skeptical questions to a lawyer defending the law, which defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman for the purposes of more than 1,000 federal laws and programs.

“The question is whether or not the federal government under a federalism system has the authority to regulate marriage,” Justice Kennedy said during oral arguments, suggesting that the question should be left to the states. He disagreed with the contention that the federal law simply created a single definition for federal purposes, noting that same-sex couples are not treated the same as other married couples. “It’s not really uniformity,” he said.

Justice Kennedy’s point echoed one made by his more liberal colleagues.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the federal law effectively created a two-tiered system of marriage. “There are two kinds of marriage,” she said. “Full marriage and the skim-milk marriage.”

Paul D. Clement, a former solicitor general who is defending the law on behalf of House Republicans because the Obama administration has concluded it is unconstitutional, argued that the federal government has “a legitimate interest to weigh into the debate” about marriage and define what it means when it uses the term in deciding everything from taxes to Social Security benefits.

[lbryce]

Bill Clinton, philanderer, impeached president,slippery purveyor of US missile technology to China, con-man extaordinaire,cigar aficianado, lover of ugly women, highly recognizable, identifiable,very own Little Rock,lover of spending time under the presidential desk, who enjoyed immensely napping out underneath the presidential desk,with a smoldering cigar in one hnd and a smoldering whatever-you-want-to-call-it, his own private little Rock, I suppose is as good as any, recently recanted his signing of the bill that outlawed gay marriage as federal violation reaming of being being the first First Husband in history NOW says, the law is unconstitutional

And of course, totally by coincidence, What- difference-does-it-make-Hillary announced last week without cosulting Catarrh-face,that she suppports gay marriage as well.

Well, it aeems like this gay marriage fun and frivolity that is going on will probably become federal law, but only if Catarrh-face and Hulllary have separate sleeping arrangments, the Rose Garden would make a very inviting budoir for Mr. Cohiba,If I do say so myself.

[llevrok]

You left out disbarred lawyer.

[DBeers]

He disagreed with the contention that the federal law simply created a single definition for federal purposes, noting that same-sex couples are not treated the same as other married couples. “It’s not really uniformity,” he said.

WHAT ABOUT ABORTION? The definition of when life begins has been imposed upon the states by the federal government? The definition was locked in stone by SCOTUS...

[BuckeyeTexan]

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list

[VanDeKoik]

“5 Justices Skeptical of Ban on Benefits to Gay Spouses”

So why stop there? Why does one have to be “married”? Under whose morality is marriage even a thing?

Benefits should be given to girlfriends/boyfriends, hook-ups, and “baby mamas” too! Hell even good friends are kinda like being married, isn’t it???

[1010RD]

They do call it an “opinion”. Logic and fact are secondary.

[highball]

I’m starting to think that they’re right. This is the FedGov stepping on a state’s right to define its own institutions.

I don’t want Washington telling Wisconsin it has to issue a certain number of gun licenses, New York that it must allow no-fault divorce or Missouri that front license plates must be mandatory.

It does raise the issue of how states will handle the marriages they don’t recognize when people move. I’m wondering how this was handled back in the 1950s and 1960s with interracial marriages? I ask not to equate them but because that’s the most recent time I can think of for different recognition of marriages across state lines.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks lbryce.

"The question is whether or not the federal government under a federalism system has the authority to regulate marriage," Justice Kennedy said during oral arguments...

...but just wait until they get to the anal arguments. "Above My Pay Grade" ping.

[texanred]

States would usually extend full faith and credit to a marriage contract executed in another state even if that marriage would be illegal in their own.

Jerry Lee Lewis comes to mind. People were outraged but she met age of consent laws in the jurisdiction were the marriage took place even if they didn’t meet the minimum age in other states or countries.

[highball]

Hadn’t thought about that one, thanks.

But not interracial marriages, at least not always. Otherwise the Lovings wouldn’t have been prosecuted. I’m not aware of anyone arresting Jerry Lee.

[xkaydet65]

Regarding benefits, one of Ronald Reagan’s objections to social security was that the beneficiary could not choose who could receive payments after death. It was and is limited to a spouse. He believed that since it was your money, you paid for it you should be able to choose, especially if you were unmarried or widowed.

[texanred]

I have no excuse for not looking this up since I’m replying to you on the Internet but... Here goes. (Lawyers please correct my fuzzy legal mind and memories.)

When police arrested the Lovings they weren’t actually arresting them for the marriage itself. The Lovings left Virginia to get married in a jurisdiction where their marriage was legal. Leaving the jurisdiction of Virginia in order to enroll in an inter-racial was itself illegal and was the crime they were charged with. The inter-racial marriage itself was not prosecuted until later when other charges fell through. IIRC she pointed out their marriage certificate after police attempted to catch them in flagrante and the police fell back on that. It was kinda an accident that the interracial law was prosecuted and appealed.

[longtermmemmory]

that was because the interacial issue was one of CHILDREN.

that relationship was a genetic purity issue nonsense.

Here we have a sexual fetish giving the special status of an immutable trait. One that is visible and has a history of discrimination.

Keep in mind homosexuals attempt to establish homosexual only clusters, appartments, and even only sell homes/apartments to other homosexuals.

Normally a judge will just say “write your congressman” if you don’t like the law. Here we have the leftwing judiciary becoming the legislature.

[longtermmemmory]

the solution is to privatize the inheritance rights.

right now the government inherits the money.

so it goes automatically to the husband/wife intestate and if unmarried then? and then? and then? and then?

[manc]

problem is that it sounds great util they go to other states and say they;r emarried and want a divorce

how about this, Yes I know it;s common sense but how about leaving marriage as it has been for thousands of years.

Weird hey how common sense can prevail but alas we have to have idiots make this a complex issue when it is not.

Keep marriage as it is and the bumper sticker slogans of no Govt doens;t wash either as that is a cop out but it sure sonds good like all bumper sticker slogans

The homosexual marriage was a communist agenda way back and now we get iditos on our side saying lets reach out to a communist agenda

F THEM

[manc]

right there is the proble,

If homsoexuals wanted marriage then why not move to MA but no they get married there and then move to other states demanding their marriage be legal and when it is not they then demand a divorce in that state.

Just keep frigging marriage as it has been for thousands of years and to hell with turd pokers or what eevr kind of weird sex or relationships they have liek polygamy

[Terry Mross]

If Kennedy says it should be left up to the states then wouldn’t that make Prop 8 legal?

[jwalsh07]

Kennedy is trying to find a federalism issue where there is none. Congress defines terms by law. If they can’t define marriage for federal purposes they can’t define anything and the Dictionary Act is unconstitutional resulting in legislative chaos. Kennedy knows this as well as Justice Roberts who got the Solicitor General to admit there is no federalism issue. But Anthony does not give a sh^t, he will do what Anthony always does.

[Diggity]

Left out pathological liar.

[momincombatboots]

I agree, this is where the rubber meets the road. It was never about “hospital visitation” or other things. It was and always has been about money. When I asked a liberal “Christian” about who was paying for this new class of beneficiaries they just looked dumbfounded.
Most of the useful idiots I know just simply have failed to realize it’s gonna cost a lot of taxpayer money. I like Reagan’s thinking on this, very libertarian.
Does the CBO have numbers on the cost of this? I have not found them, but sometimes I miss things like that.