New Jersey court recognizes right to same-sex unions

mindseye

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2002
Posts
3,399
Media
0
Likes
15
Points
258
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Well, in theory other states would have to recognize the marriages. However, most states of DOMAs. In order for the other states to be obligated to honour these marriages, the DOMAs themselves would need to be challenged and struck down.

Nyet, nyet, to both of you. There is a federal DOMA, been on the books since 1996,

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

There's little reason to challenge the state DOMAs as long as that stands.
 

amazed

Just Browsing
Joined
Oct 27, 2006
Posts
10
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
221
Location
NJ
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
The federal DOMA says that states cant be "required" to but they can be forced by any judge to recognize the civil contract by the couple. It just hasnt been presented to a judge with a strong legal cause. I am not talking about the marriage itself but more of the business and legal aspects of the civil license. The DOMA would legalize polygamy.
 

fortiesfun

Sexy Member
Joined
May 29, 2006
Posts
4,619
Media
0
Likes
77
Points
268
Location
California (United States)
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
The federal DOMA says that states cant be "required" to but they can be forced by any judge to recognize the civil contract by the couple. It just hasnt been presented to a judge with a strong legal cause. I am not talking about the marriage itself but more of the business and legal aspects of the civil license. The DOMA would legalize polygamy.

It takes an extremely optimistic interpreter to believe that a judge "forcing" a state to recognize the civil contract of another state is somehow different enough from "requiring" it to recognizing marriage rights to pass muster with our current Supreme Court, unless the judge you mean is a member of the Federal Supreme Court.

Even then, the most to hope for is review by the high court in anticipation of overturning DOMA as unconstitutional. Possible, but probably better to wait for a new justice or two to make that challenge.
 

mindseye

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2002
Posts
3,399
Media
0
Likes
15
Points
258
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Even then, the most to hope for is review by the high court in anticipation of overturning DOMA as unconstitutional. Possible, but probably better to wait for a new justice or two to make that challenge.

I think it'd be easier to repeal DOMA in 2009; the Democratic majority in the Senate will undoubtedly survive the 2008 elections, and if the majority in the House does as well, we may have a shot at repealing the federal law.
 

fortiesfun

Sexy Member
Joined
May 29, 2006
Posts
4,619
Media
0
Likes
77
Points
268
Location
California (United States)
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
I think it'd be easier to repeal DOMA in 2009; the Democratic majority in the Senate will undoubtedly survive the 2008 elections, and if the majority in the House does as well, we may have a shot at repealing the federal law.

I am not always as optimistic as you are, mindseye, but I always hope you are right. DOMA is bad law based on bad public policy and hurts everyone just to pander to the religious right. Look at how it has "trickled down" in Virginia, where the law now penalizes everyone who is not married, gay or not. I'd love to see it repealed. I'm interpreting that you think it will have to wait until 2008 because the Democrats will be cautious about opening social divide for two years to secure their power. Is that your logic?
 

mindseye

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2002
Posts
3,399
Media
0
Likes
15
Points
258
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I'm interpreting that you think it will have to wait until 2008 because the Democrats will be cautious about opening social divide for two years to secure their power. Is that your logic?

I agree with you that the Democrats will be careful not to be too polarizing in the 110th Congress, but that wasn't what I had in mind. I was thinking that (1) there aren't quite enough votes in the Senate yet to repeal DOMA -- despite the slim Democratic majority, some Democrats will vote against marriage equality (Ben Nelson of Nebraska comes to mind), and (2) even if a repeal did pass both houses in the next session, it wouldn't survive a presidential veto.