Law professor: Slippery slope to legal incest and polygamy

[Quantum Windbag]

And that's where the next court challenge will come from. DOMA Section II.

So you can't explain it.

By the way, that law has already stood a few challenges.

What do you want explained? It remains to be seen whether Federal benefits will still be extended to couples who marry in one state and move to another.

Name the cases that withstood a challenge.

The law for Social Security specifically states state of domicile. There have been numerous cases where a common law marriage valid in one state was held invalid in another, and thus survivor benefits were denied.

 

[Beachboy]

1,521 posts on legal incest and polygamy, I would never have guessed there could be that much interest in the subject. I wonder if there anything to be concerned about here?

1,521 posts on incest an polygamy in less than two weeks, 10,703 viewings at USMB, seems is a whole lot of interest in what strikes me as a fringe topic.

Then, I can't understand why anyone would mix gay marriage into that subject.

 

[Gadawg73]

So you can't explain it.

By the way, that law has already stood a few challenges.

What do you want explained? It remains to be seen whether Federal benefits will still be extended to couples who marry in one state and move to another.

Name the cases that withstood a challenge.

The law for Social Security specifically states state of domicile. There have been numerous cases where a common law marriage valid in one state was held invalid in another, and thus survivor benefits were denied.

So all they have to do is move to a state that it is valid.

 

[Seawytch]

So you can't explain it.

By the way, that law has already stood a few challenges.

What do you want explained? It remains to be seen whether Federal benefits will still be extended to couples who marry in one state and move to another.

Name the cases that withstood a challenge.

The law for Social Security specifically states state of domicile. There have been numerous cases where a common law marriage valid in one state was held invalid in another, and thus survivor benefits were denied.

Which takes us back to what I said before...and there is your next SCOTUS challenge, Section II of DOMA.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Except, like I said, it has nothing to do with DOMA.

 

[Seawytch]

Except, like I said, it has nothing to do with DOMA.

It has everything to do with DOMA. It is DOMA that says my legal marriage doesn't have to be treated like your legal marriage.

Still waiting for those court challenges you said existed.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Except, like I said, it has nothing to do with DOMA.

It has everything to do with DOMA. It is DOMA that says my legal marriage doesn't have to be treated like your legal marriage.

Still waiting for those court challenges you said existed.

We are talking about Social Security, not your imaginary beef with a law that has already been overturned.

 

[Seawytch]

Except, like I said, it has nothing to do with DOMA.

It has everything to do with DOMA. It is DOMA that says my legal marriage doesn't have to be treated like your legal marriage.

Still waiting for those court challenges you said existed.

We are talking about Social Security, not your imaginary beef with a law that has already been overturned.

Wrong. Section III was overturned, Section II is still in place and where the next challenge will come from.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It has everything to do with DOMA. It is DOMA that says my legal marriage doesn't have to be treated like your legal marriage.

Still waiting for those court challenges you said existed.

We are talking about Social Security, not your imaginary beef with a law that has already been overturned.

Wrong. Section III was overturned, Section II is still in place and where the next challenge will come from.

We are talking about Social Security here, despite your absurd hatred of DOMA. The law for Social Security says that rules in the state of domicile apply, rant about DOMA all you want, it won't change the law for Social Security.

 

[Gadawg73]

Has there been a single piece of legislation EVER proposed that would get the government out of the "marriage biz"? Any state legislature anywhere?

No, they talk a mean game but offer nothing.

 

[Seawytch]

We are talking about Social Security, not your imaginary beef with a law that has already been overturned.

Wrong. Section III was overturned, Section II is still in place and where the next challenge will come from.

We are talking about Social Security here, despite your absurd hatred of DOMA. The law for Social Security says that rules in the state of domicile apply, rant about DOMA all you want, it won't change the law for Social Security.

It is DOMA Section II that now remains that treats legal marriages between same sex couples differently than all other legal marriages. First cousins and 16 year olds married in one state are still married in the other stares that do not allow these marriages.

Under Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, states are supposed to give “full faith and credit” to the laws and court rulings of other states, subject to some regulation by Congress[...]

In Section 2 of DOMA, Congress carved out an exception to “full faith and credit,” excusing states from their obligation to honor the laws of other states “respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State.” But while some lawsuits have challenged Section 2, plaintiffs have had trouble getting past the threshold question of standing. To show sufficient injury, presumably a same-sex couple will have to marry lawfully in one state and then relocate and establish residency in a state that refuses to recognize their relationship and, as a result, denies them benefits and access to state programs. Only then might plaintiffs have sufficient injury to even be able to challenge Section 2.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/03/s...-the-constitution-sponsored-by-bloomberg-law/

Thanks to DOMA III being overturned, more and more couples are going to be able to demonstrate "sufficient injury"...

It has everything to do with DOMA.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Wrong. Section III was overturned, Section II is still in place and where the next challenge will come from.

We are talking about Social Security here, despite your absurd hatred of DOMA. The law for Social Security says that rules in the state of domicile apply, rant about DOMA all you want, it won't change the law for Social Security.

It is DOMA Section II that now remains that treats legal marriages between same sex couples differently than all other legal marriages. First cousins and 16 year olds married in one state are still married in the other stares that do not allow these marriages.

Under Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, states are supposed to give “full faith and credit” to the laws and court rulings of other states, subject to some regulation by Congress[...]

In Section 2 of DOMA, Congress carved out an exception to “full faith and credit,” excusing states from their obligation to honor the laws of other states “respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State.” But while some lawsuits have challenged Section 2, plaintiffs have had trouble getting past the threshold question of standing. To show sufficient injury, presumably a same-sex couple will have to marry lawfully in one state and then relocate and establish residency in a state that refuses to recognize their relationship and, as a result, denies them benefits and access to state programs. Only then might plaintiffs have sufficient injury to even be able to challenge Section 2.

SCOTUS for law students: The Defense of Marriage Act and the Constitution (sponsored by Bloomberg Law) : SCOTUSblog

Thanks to DOMA III being overturned, more and more couples are going to be able to demonstrate "sufficient injury"...

It has everything to do with DOMA.

Do you understand the words Social Security?

https://www.socialsecurity.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title02/0216.htm

This has held up to challenges before because it doesn't discriminate, despite your obsession about DOMA.

 

[FA_Q2]

Has there been a single piece of legislation EVER proposed that would get the government out of the "marriage biz"? Any state legislature anywhere?

No, they talk a mean game but offer nothing.

Bullshit. We talk of what we believe in. The fact remains that most do not agree with us. You act as if libertarians are unaware of this simple reality when the opposite is very true. Libertarians are quite aware of the popularity of their convictions. The sad part is that many seem to think that should change those convictions as though what I and others believe in should be subject to others approval.

We talk and offer what we stand for however much of the rest of the nation stands in our way as they support the state. I can only hope that people will waken up to the reality of what they support before we slide into a tyranny.

 

[Seawytch]

We are talking about Social Security here, despite your absurd hatred of DOMA. The law for Social Security says that rules in the state of domicile apply, rant about DOMA all you want, it won't change the law for Social Security.

It is DOMA Section II that now remains that treats legal marriages between same sex couples differently than all other legal marriages. First cousins and 16 year olds married in one state are still married in the other stares that do not allow these marriages.

Under Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, states are supposed to give “full faith and credit” to the laws and court rulings of other states, subject to some regulation by Congress[...]

In Section 2 of DOMA, Congress carved out an exception to “full faith and credit,” excusing states from their obligation to honor the laws of other states “respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State.” But while some lawsuits have challenged Section 2, plaintiffs have had trouble getting past the threshold question of standing. To show sufficient injury, presumably a same-sex couple will have to marry lawfully in one state and then relocate and establish residency in a state that refuses to recognize their relationship and, as a result, denies them benefits and access to state programs. Only then might plaintiffs have sufficient injury to even be able to challenge Section 2.

SCOTUS for law students: The Defense of Marriage Act and the Constitution (sponsored by Bloomberg Law) : SCOTUSblog

Thanks to DOMA III being overturned, more and more couples are going to be able to demonstrate "sufficient injury"...

It has everything to do with DOMA.

Do you understand the words Social Security?

https://www.socialsecurity.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title02/0216.htm

This has held up to challenges before because it doesn't discriminate, despite your obsession about DOMA.

Yes I do and I understand that it is DOMA section 2 that means my legal marriage gets treated differently than yours. If you marry your 1st cousin in HI and and move to AL, you're still legally married and your SS is unaffected. If I move to AL, I'm no longer considered legally married in AL despite being legally married in CA. That is solely because of DOMA Section 2.

 

[Redfish]

It is DOMA Section II that now remains that treats legal marriages between same sex couples differently than all other legal marriages. First cousins and 16 year olds married in one state are still married in the other stares that do not allow these marriages.

Under Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, states are supposed to give “full faith and credit” to the laws and court rulings of other states, subject to some regulation by Congress[...]

In Section 2 of DOMA, Congress carved out an exception to “full faith and credit,” excusing states from their obligation to honor the laws of other states “respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State.” But while some lawsuits have challenged Section 2, plaintiffs have had trouble getting past the threshold question of standing. To show sufficient injury, presumably a same-sex couple will have to marry lawfully in one state and then relocate and establish residency in a state that refuses to recognize their relationship and, as a result, denies them benefits and access to state programs. Only then might plaintiffs have sufficient injury to even be able to challenge Section 2.

SCOTUS for law students: The Defense of Marriage Act and the Constitution (sponsored by Bloomberg Law) : SCOTUSblog

Thanks to DOMA III being overturned, more and more couples are going to be able to demonstrate "sufficient injury"...

It has everything to do with DOMA.

Do you understand the words Social Security?

https://www.socialsecurity.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title02/0216.htm

This has held up to challenges before because it doesn't discriminate, despite your obsession about DOMA.

Yes I do and I understand that it is DOMA section 2 that means my legal marriage gets treated differently than yours. If you marry your 1st cousin in HI and and move to AL, you're still legally married and your SS is unaffected. If I move to AL, I'm no longer considered legally married in AL despite being legally married in CA. That is solely because of DOMA Section 2.

then stay in CA----problem solved.

 

[Seawytch]

Do you understand the words Social Security?

https://www.socialsecurity.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title02/0216.htm

This has held up to challenges before because it doesn't discriminate, despite your obsession about DOMA.

Yes I do and I understand that it is DOMA section 2 that means my legal marriage gets treated differently than yours. If you marry your 1st cousin in HI and and move to AL, you're still legally married and your SS is unaffected. If I move to AL, I'm no longer considered legally married in AL despite being legally married in CA. That is solely because of DOMA Section 2.

then stay in CA----problem solved.

Treat marriages equally under the law---problem solved.

 

[Redfish]

Yes I do and I understand that it is DOMA section 2 that means my legal marriage gets treated differently than yours. If you marry your 1st cousin in HI and and move to AL, you're still legally married and your SS is unaffected. If I move to AL, I'm no longer considered legally married in AL despite being legally married in CA. That is solely because of DOMA Section 2.

then stay in CA----problem solved.

Treat marriages equally under the law---problem solved.

they already are. what you have is not a marriage.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It is DOMA Section II that now remains that treats legal marriages between same sex couples differently than all other legal marriages. First cousins and 16 year olds married in one state are still married in the other stares that do not allow these marriages.

Under Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, states are supposed to give “full faith and credit” to the laws and court rulings of other states, subject to some regulation by Congress[...]

In Section 2 of DOMA, Congress carved out an exception to “full faith and credit,” excusing states from their obligation to honor the laws of other states “respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State.” But while some lawsuits have challenged Section 2, plaintiffs have had trouble getting past the threshold question of standing. To show sufficient injury, presumably a same-sex couple will have to marry lawfully in one state and then relocate and establish residency in a state that refuses to recognize their relationship and, as a result, denies them benefits and access to state programs. Only then might plaintiffs have sufficient injury to even be able to challenge Section 2.

SCOTUS for law students: The Defense of Marriage Act and the Constitution (sponsored by Bloomberg Law) : SCOTUSblog

Thanks to DOMA III being overturned, more and more couples are going to be able to demonstrate "sufficient injury"...

It has everything to do with DOMA.

Do you understand the words Social Security?

https://www.socialsecurity.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title02/0216.htm

This has held up to challenges before because it doesn't discriminate, despite your obsession about DOMA.

Yes I do and I understand that it is DOMA section 2 that means my legal marriage gets treated differently than yours. If you marry your 1st cousin in HI and and move to AL, you're still legally married and your SS is unaffected. If I move to AL, I'm no longer considered legally married in AL despite being legally married in CA. That is solely because of DOMA Section 2.

Yes, your marraige is protected by federal law, mine isn't. Yet you are the one whinging about DOMA, while I am the one that doesn't give a ****.

 

[Redfish]

Do you understand the words Social Security?

https://www.socialsecurity.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title02/0216.htm

This has held up to challenges before because it doesn't discriminate, despite your obsession about DOMA.

Yes I do and I understand that it is DOMA section 2 that means my legal marriage gets treated differently than yours. If you marry your 1st cousin in HI and and move to AL, you're still legally married and your SS is unaffected. If I move to AL, I'm no longer considered legally married in AL despite being legally married in CA. That is solely because of DOMA Section 2.

Yes, your marraige is protected by federal law, mine isn't. Yet you are the one whinging about DOMA, while I am the one that doesn't give a ****.

for the record, wytchey does not have a **** to give, unless you include battery powered ones.

 

[Seawytch]

then stay in CA----problem solved.

Treat marriages equally under the law---problem solved.

they already are. what you have is not a marriage.

They almost are, thanks to the SCOTUS. Once Section 2 is successfully challenged, they will be.