Quantcast

Subscribe to:
POZ magazine
E-newsletters
Join POZ: Facebook MySpace Twitter Pinterest
Tumblr Google+ Flickr MySpace
POZ Personals
Sign In / Join
Username:
Password:
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 25, 2014, 02:32:36 PM

Login with username, password and session length


Members
  • Total Members: 23038
  • Latest: goesny
Stats
  • Total Posts: 631874
  • Total Topics: 47839
  • Online Today: 293
  • Online Ever: 585
  • (January 07, 2014, 02:31:47 PM)
Users Online

Welcome


Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and others concerned about HIV/AIDS.  Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning:  Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

  • The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own physician.

  • All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

  • Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

  • We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are true and correct to their knowledge.

  • Product advertisement—including links; banners; editorial content; and clinical trial, study or survey participation—is strictly prohibited by forums members unless permission has been secured from POZ.

To change forums navigation language settings, click here (members only), Register now

Para cambiar sus preferencias de los foros en español, haz clic aquí (sólo miembros), Regístrate ahora

Finished Reading This? You can collapse this or any other box on this page by clicking the symbol in each box.

Author Topic: Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) Up for US Supreme Court Review This Week...  (Read 6469 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline OneTampa

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,095
  • "Butterflies are free."
« Last Edit: March 24, 2013, 11:16:41 PM by OneTampa »
"He is my oldest child. The shy and retiring one over there with the Haitian headdress serving pescaíto frito."

Offline mitch777

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,360
  • wish i were here
Keeping my fingers crossed!

It will be interesting to hear any comments made from Roberts and Kennedy during the arguments.

While the media keeps on talking about how "fast" things are turning for gay rights, I find that it has been a pathetically SLOW process to achieve equal rights.

Guess it really takes the majority of the country to "decide" when equal rights will be "given". ::)

Next huge hurdle...
Health care as a right.
31 years hiv+ (oct. 2013) with a curtsy.

Online Miss Philicia

  • Member
  • Posts: 23,883
  • celebrity poster, faker & poser

While the media keeps on talking about how "fast" things are turning for gay rights, I find that it has been a pathetically SLOW process to achieve equal rights.

It's been fast compared to other social movements, but like any greedy bottom you're never satiated.
"I’ve slept with enough men to know that I’m not gay"

Offline mitch777

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,360
  • wish i were here
It's been fast compared to other social movements, but like any greedy bottom you're never satiated.
You got THAT right! :)
31 years hiv+ (oct. 2013) with a curtsy.

Online Miss Philicia

  • Member
  • Posts: 23,883
  • celebrity poster, faker & poser
I seriously hope folks aren't getting their hopes up about a broad ruling.

btw Mitchell, are you married?
"I’ve slept with enough men to know that I’m not gay"

Offline mitch777

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,360
  • wish i were here
I seriously hope folks aren't getting their hopes up about a broad ruling.

btw Mitchell, are you married?

Yes, I am getting my hopes up for a broad ruling.
How realistic the possibility does not keep my hope from decline.

And no, I am not married but want the choice and equal FEDERAL benefits should I/we decide that it is what we want.
31 years hiv+ (oct. 2013) with a curtsy.

Online Miss Philicia

  • Member
  • Posts: 23,883
  • celebrity poster, faker & poser

And no, I am not married but want the choice and equal FEDERAL benefits should I/we decide that it is what we want.

Patti Stanger would say that you've waited far too long for that wedding ring.
"I’ve slept with enough men to know that I’m not gay"

Offline mitch777

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,360
  • wish i were here
Patti Stanger would say that you've waited far too long for that wedding ring.
Patti hasn't met my "husband".
(just kidding :).)
31 years hiv+ (oct. 2013) with a curtsy.

Offline buginme2

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,834
I'm hoping for a broad ruling, damn right.

DOMA's dust.  I'm predicting a vote of 6 to 3 to overturn it with Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer, Ginsberg, Kennedy, and Roberts voting to overturn and Scalia, Thomas, and Alito to keep it.

Prop 8 is more difficult. They could rule on standing which would overturn prop 8 in California but have no effect on the remainder of the country and not even touch on the constitutional issues.  Or they could decide on the merits of it in which case I'd hope for a broad ruling either 5 to 4 or even 6 to 3 with the same justices.

In any event, fingers crossed.

Offline mecch

  • Member
  • Posts: 11,225
  • red pill? or blue pill?
Stonewall was 1969.
How has this been fast? Compared to what??
“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Offline mecch

  • Member
  • Posts: 11,225
  • red pill? or blue pill?
Brown vs. Board of Education was 1954.
Rosa Parks civil disobedience Dec 1955
July 1964 - Civil Rights Act
“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Online Miss Philicia

  • Member
  • Posts: 23,883
  • celebrity poster, faker & poser
14th amendment until Brown v Board of Education was close to a century.

The 19th amendment for women to vote was 1920 -- well, if you want to figure out a starting point for that movement feel free to. The first known female voter in the (pre-) US was Lydia Taft in 1756, Massachusetts.

You couldn't fuck each other in the ass until ten years ago, so leap frogging to marriage before making workplace discrimination illegal nationally is "fast".
"I’ve slept with enough men to know that I’m not gay"

Offline mecch

  • Member
  • Posts: 11,225
  • red pill? or blue pill?
Hard to figure out the start point for any civil rights movement, isn't it.
But I don't consider gay civil rights to have been fast.
“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Offline OneTampa

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,095
  • "Butterflies are free."
My view is that when equal rights are not equally available and applicable the correction can't be fast enough.
"He is my oldest child. The shy and retiring one over there with the Haitian headdress serving pescaíto frito."

Offline buginme2

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,834
so leap frogging to marriage before making workplace discrimination illegal nationally is "fast".

Won't that be a kicker if marriage is affirmed for the entire country yet ENDA is still stalled?

It's absurd ENDA hasn't passed yet.

Offline OneTampa

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,095
  • "Butterflies are free."
The crowd's paying to peep the proceedings.



Link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/25/supreme-court-gay-marriage_n_2950880.html?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl4|sec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D289041
« Last Edit: March 25, 2013, 10:09:28 PM by OneTampa »
"He is my oldest child. The shy and retiring one over there with the Haitian headdress serving pescaíto frito."

Offline buginme2

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,834
And so it begins.....

Early in arguments the justices questioned whether they had agreed too soon to take this case. 

“I just wonder if this case was properly granted,” said Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who probably holds the decisive vote.

The court spoke of how "fast" the country is moving on this issue and may be inclined to let it play out organically and not intervene. 

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said the court should not move too fast

On the lighter side of the debate they took on the issue that the government has an interest in keeping marriage between men and women for procreation.  Of course Scalia responded;

Justice Antonin Scalia remarked wryly, “I suppose we could have a questionnaire at the marriage desk asking, ‘Are you fertile?"

The hope that there would be a broad decision are over.  They basically said that's not going to happen.

« Last Edit: March 26, 2013, 01:08:04 PM by buginme2 »

Online Jeff G

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 10,766
  • How am I doing Beren ?
Its an odd position the court is in because highly its unusual and unprecedented for the court to hear a case where its not established if one of the litigants have standing to bring the suit to begin with . I would imagine that the fact there is a question on wether the case is indeed a solid legal case is enough to get an extremely conservative judgement if not being thrown out all together .

 

Offline buginme2

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,834
Getting a broad decision on prop 8 which would legalize marriage throughout the country was a long shot.  It most likely will be decided on the standing issue and allow the lower court ruling to stand. 

However, I still believe That DOMA will be overturned!!  The court can't (shouldn't) punt the ball on this one.  IMHO Bill Clinton signed the law knowing full well it wouldn't stand up in court (not to mention it put a stop to the "constitutional amendment" talk of republicans at the time).  I really dont think he would have signed it had he thought it would pass judicial muster. 

Regardless, the law is shit.

Tommorrows arguments should prove interesting.

Online Miss Philicia

  • Member
  • Posts: 23,883
  • celebrity poster, faker & poser

The hope that there would be a broad decision are over.  They basically said that's not going to happen.


... like I said
"I’ve slept with enough men to know that I’m not gay"

Offline tednlou2

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,760
President Clinton was way up in the polls in 1996.  It was that awful man, Dick Morris, who pushed for signing DOMA.  He believed it would save Clinton a tiny drop in the polls.  Let's be real.  Clinton made a political decision on the backs of gays.  I applaud him for taking on gays serving in the military, as soon as he took office.  But, the DOMA issue has been hard to overlook. 

So, he now says it is unconstitutional.  Well, why did he sign it?  The constitutionality hasn't changed.  I also find it interesting all the Dems lining up to support marriage equality, right before the court hears the case--when it seems more politically favorable to do so.  But, I suppose better late than never. 

Offline tednlou2

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,760
I've been wondering about the two couples from California in the Prop 8 case.  I can't believe just two couples from a huge state were the only ones to sue. 

How does this work?  Are their cases the only ones that made it up to the Supreme Court?  Did the lawyers just pick their cases to take to the court?  Or, is it really that they were the only two couples who sued? 

If Prop 8 is ruled to only apply to California, can people in states that passed bans sue and hopefully get to federal court and the Supreme Court?  I realize the situation is different.  In California, they had the right to marry and voters took that right away.  In Kentucky and all the other states, we never had that right.  Or, will we have to wait and get voters to vote to do away with the ban?  That would take at least another 20 years here, at the very least.  It passed by 75% here.

Offline buginme2

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,834
I don't fault Bill Clinton at all.  During that time there was a big push for a national constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage.  Clinton signed DOMA to appease the Republicans and stop the constitutional amendment push which would have been far far worse.

If you know.the bill you are signing will eventually be overturned by the courts isn't that a much better option than a national constitutional amendment banning marriage.  I would sign it.  He did the right thing.

These battles are won over decades, not years.

Offline OneTampa

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,095
  • "Butterflies are free."
Recently updated article on the Court arguments:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/26/prop-8_n_2952591.html?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D289481




"He is my oldest child. The shy and retiring one over there with the Haitian headdress serving pescaíto frito."

Offline buginme2

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,834
SCOTUS heard arguments about DOMA today. 

Started off wonky.  There was a bit of criticism for President Obama.  The Obama administration declared earlier that the law was unconstitutional and wouldn't defend the law.  There was some discussion that if he felt this way why is he still enforcing the law?  There was also some discussion as to whether the court can decide on the case.

The arguments about the law were much more favorable than they were on prop 8 yesterday.  It's assumed that if they do make a decision on the law there will be at least 5 justices needed to overturn it (I'm still thinking there might be 6 to overturn DOMA...taking wagers?). 

I think the most telling piece of today's arguments was when the lawyers read the house brief for when the bill was passed and they said it was passed out of moral disapproval of homosexuality. 

So. We wait.


Offline tednlou2

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,760
Whatever happens, so much change is happening so quickly.  Today Show reporter and wknd anchor came out on air, and that she is marrying NBC News correspondent, Stephanie Gosk.  Gosk had been stationed in London for a long time.  I noticed they brought her back to be a reporter here.  Now I know why.  They are expecting a baby. 

Andersen came out.  Don Lemon came out.  Thomas Roberts has been out.  I just don't think this would have happened even five years ago.  And, especially for journalists, because it would seem like they were taking a political view, or promoting one.  And, now I am hearing one or more current NFL players may come out.  Even if we don't get all we want this time, I can't see how marriage rights can go another decade, without giving them to gay Americans.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ik2I_ga1EeE&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Offline mitch777

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,360
  • wish i were here
Whatever happens, so much change is happening so quickly.  Today Show reporter and wknd anchor came out on air, and that she is marrying NBC News correspondent, Stephanie Gosk.  Gosk had been stationed in London for a long time.  I noticed they brought her back to be a reporter here.  Now I know why.  They are expecting a baby. 

Andersen came out.  Don Lemon came out.  Thomas Roberts has been out.  I just don't think this would have happened even five years ago.  And, especially for journalists, because it would seem like they were taking a political view, or promoting one.  And, now I am hearing one or more current NFL players may come out.  Even if we don't get all we want this time, I can't see how marriage rights can go another decade, without giving them to gay Americans.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ik2I_ga1EeE&feature=youtube_gdata_player
I agree Ted.
I didn't think things were progressing very fast UNTIL the past 5 years or so.
It is inevitable for gay marriage rights but it would be great if the Supreme Court would see the clear inequity and apply the Constitution NOW!
ME= Impatient. :)
31 years hiv+ (oct. 2013) with a curtsy.

Offline mecch

  • Member
  • Posts: 11,225
  • red pill? or blue pill?
But where did I see a slide show, yesterday, of a bunch of young christian types in D.C. holding signs explaining why they were against same-sex marriage.  Dumb ass reasoning where the Bible explains ALL REALITY and should direct all USA laws.  And misspellings.  Crap I know thats the way it is, but its so discouraging that this many young Americans can be so poorly informed about separation of church and state. And hypocritical, cause they would certainly fear and hate sharia law.  Freedom to be christian and righteous and prejudiced, and no freedom for any other moral system.  I'm usually generous and indulgent of youth, but yesterday I just thought, fucking assholes!!!!  And the minorities among them.  Preaching dumbass denial of gay civil rights. Shame!
“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Offline mitch777

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,360
  • wish i were here
But where did I see a slide show, yesterday, of a bunch of young christian types in D.C. holding signs explaining why they were against same-sex marriage.  Dumb ass reasoning where the Bible explains ALL REALITY and should direct all USA laws.  And misspellings.  Crap I know thats the way it is, but its so discouraging that this many young Americans can be so poorly informed about separation of church and state. And hypocritical, cause they would certainly fear and hate sharia law.  Freedom to be christian and righteous and prejudiced, and no freedom for any other moral system.  I'm usually generous and indulgent of youth, but yesterday I just thought, fucking assholes!!!!  And the minorities among them.  Preaching dumbass denial of gay civil rights. Shame!
agreed but luckily those who you have just described are SLOWLY shrinking in number.
too slow for me but as the sands of time...

on a positive note...
the media, news and otherwise, has become very open and the closet door hinges are getting pretty squeaky. :)
« Last Edit: March 27, 2013, 05:16:41 PM by mitch777 »
31 years hiv+ (oct. 2013) with a curtsy.

Offline mecch

  • Member
  • Posts: 11,225
  • red pill? or blue pill?
Oh, and I'm not anti-American, there were dumbass youth protesting against same-sex marriage in France this year, too. merde!
“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Offline buginme2

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,834
  Crap I know thats the way it is, but its so discouraging that this many young Americans can be so poorly informed about separation of church and state.

I wouldn't say it's "many" young Americans that think this way.  Recent polling shows that70% of Americans between the ages of 18-40 support marriage equality.  At the recent CPAC conference, they noted that the young attendees were almost unanimously supportive of marriage equality.

Of course there are religious nuts. Has been and always will be.  However, my unscientific opinion is that the religious zealousness of this country has been declining quite a bit over the past decade.

PS.  What's up with France.  I watched that on the news and as rather shocked.  What ever happened to cest la vie?

Offline mecch

  • Member
  • Posts: 11,225
  • red pill? or blue pill?
In both photosets, it seems that zealot parents are putting words and ideas into their children's heads...
I guess this is pretty standard experience of changing cultures and advancing civil rights to everyone...
(A middle-aged Swiss woman and her husband made the stupid decision to camp in the countryside of a traditional part of India recently. The husband was tied to a tree while the woman was gang raped. It was a big story in Indian and Switzerland. The other day, the Geneva current event news went to India to cover the whole story. Officials from that region had sort of said the woman was asking for it.  Delhi sophisticates were aghast and apologised.  The journalists reported on the cultural disrespect for women and the rising tension in traditional areas as things become more international and women generally make progress. Also the gang rapes and the tens of thousands of rapes a year with little followup. The news crew interviewed a lot of men in the region. They were sexist pigs, disgusting views, to my European or Western sensibilities.. Then they interviewed women from all different regions, classes, and young women too. Who ALL explained what sexist pigs these traditional men were. Even the rural women. They expected equal rights, respect, protection of the law. The men couldn't fathom it at all... They spoke against all progress and "western influence".  They wanted the status quo, a roll back of progress, isolationism, impunity, power.)
“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Offline tednlou2

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,760
Not to get off on a tangent about Clinton, but I think it is important to point out how he lead out of fear and what polled well, instead of what's right.  In 2004, it has been reported he encouraged John Kerry to come out in favor of bans.  Clinton folks deny this.  Kerry folks say it is true, and that Kerry said no way.  If true, he would be in very similar company with Karl Rove, by using gays for political advantage. 

I know it was a different time, but it doesn't make it right.  He could have led on the issue, and perhaps we woud be farther along.  Preidents do have the power to influence change.  While Obama can't get all the credit for the huge change, I have no doubt that it isn't a complete coincidence we've seen so much change, since he became president.  To be fair, Obama said he was against gay marriage in 2008.  But, I think he was being very strategic to finally get to where we are today.  And, he was expanding rights, instead of taking them away, in the meantime. 

So, while I like a Clinton very much, I think he failed to lead on this.  It was only after public opinion caught up, that he is now changing his views.  It is sad that shows like Ellen's sitcom and talk show, Will & Grace, and Modern Family can claim more credit for leading on the issue than he can. 

http://www.policymic.com/articles/29125/doma-bill-clinton-flip-flops-but-that-s-just-what-he-does

Offline bocker3

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,358
  • You gotta enjoy life......
Not to get off on a tangent about Clinton, but I think it is important to point out how he lead out of fear and what polled well, instead of what's right.  In 2004, it has been reported he encouraged John Kerry to come out in favor of bans.  Clinton folks deny this.  Kerry folks say it is true, and that Kerry said no way.  If true, he would be in very similar company with Karl Rove, by using gays for political advantage. 

I know it was a different time, but it doesn't make it right.  He could have led on the issue, and perhaps we woud be farther along.  Preidents do have the power to influence change.  While Obama can't get all the credit for the huge change, I have no doubt that it isn't a complete coincidence we've seen so much change, since he became president.  To be fair, Obama said he was against gay marriage in 2008.  But, I think he was being very strategic to finally get to where we are today.  And, he was expanding rights, instead of taking them away, in the meantime. 

So, while I like a Clinton very much, I think he failed to lead on this.  It was only after public opinion caught up, that he is now changing his views.  It is sad that shows like Ellen's sitcom and talk show, Will & Grace, and Modern Family can claim more credit for leading on the issue than he can. 

http://www.policymic.com/articles/29125/doma-bill-clinton-flip-flops-but-that-s-just-what-he-does

So why was Obama "strategic" in 2008, yet Clinton "failed to lead"?  I'm not following your logic at all.  I'll repeat what Bug said -- while DOMA sucked, it stopped the building momentum for a Constitutional Amendment.  I'm very happy that strategy worked.  Clinton tried to deal with gays in the military -- he failed, and Don't Ask, Don't Tell came to be -- but it got folks talking about it.  If Bill had not done either of those things, I doubt you'd be saying how "strategic" Obama was, because we'd likely not be where we are today.

Mike
Atripla - Started 12/05
Reyataz/Norvir - Added 6/06
Labs - Pre-Meds
Sep05 T=350/25% VL98,559
Nov05 288/18%  47,564
Current Labs
May2013 691/31% <20

Online Miss Philicia

  • Member
  • Posts: 23,883
  • celebrity poster, faker & poser
"I’ve slept with enough men to know that I’m not gay"

Offline tednlou2

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,760
So why was Obama "strategic" in 2008, yet Clinton "failed to lead"?  I'm not following your logic at all.  I'll repeat what Bug said -- while DOMA sucked, it stopped the building momentum for a Constitutional Amendment.  I'm very happy that strategy worked.  Clinton tried to deal with gays in the military -- he failed, and Don't Ask, Don't Tell came to be -- but it got folks talking about it.  If Bill had not done either of those things, I doubt you'd be saying how "strategic" Obama was, because we'd likely not be where we are today.

Mike

Since I wasn't as politically involved in the 90's as now, my memory isn't as good on these things.  From what I remember and have been googling, there was never any real threat of a federal amendment.  Well, not an immediate threat.  In fact, no vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment has ever happened.  Even back then, it would have been difficult to get two-thirds vote and then three-fourths vote in the states to ratify it.  Could have happened, but would have been difficult.  And, many are hesitant in messing with the U.S. Constitution, even if they are willing to change the states'. 

If there was a growing threat, it seemed like what Dems often do best--negotiate against ourselves and give everything away out of fear of some threat, that probably won't even bear out.  If there is some information that shows Clinton acted to stop a Constitutional amendment, I would like to read it.  As I said, I wasn't all that involved back then and I may be spouting off about things I don't know the full story on.  Seriously, I wouldn't mind being corrected.  From all I've been able to read, it was a total political strategy--just like suggesting to Kerry to favor bans in 2004.  I admit it is hard to google events that happened before 2000, especially if they didn't get much press coverage.  And, Clinton didn't discuss DOMA in his book, that I bought and read. 


Offline buginme2

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,834
This is a pretty good article written last mont in the New York Times titled "Bill Clinton's Decision, and Regret, on DOMA"

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/26/us/politics/bill-clintons-decision-and-regret-on-defense-of-marriage-act.html?hp&pagewanted=all

There is one thing that does bug me a bit about Bill Clinton signing DOMA.  No matter what his political reason for doing so was, if he truly felt that the law was unconstitutional (as I believe he did, and which he now says to be true) then regardless he shouldn't have signed it for the simple fact that as president, when he is inaugurated he swears before his country that he will support and defend the constitution of the United States from all enemies foreign and domestic.  And for that, he failed regardless of the politics of it.

Just a thought

Offline bocker3

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,358
  • You gotta enjoy life......
Ted,

I don't necessarily disagree with you that there was some political expediency in Clinton's actions -- even if I think (hope) there was some bigger plan that had a (minute) piece in it.  However, I think Obama's 2008 stance was ALSO a bit of political play to help ensure his election - he was OK with saying we deserved less than equal.  That was my real question -- why does Obama get a "pass"? 

M

edited to add:  I don't necessarily have a ton of heartburn on either of their actions -- their elections / reelections were far better options than the alternatives.  Although, at the time -- Don't Ask, Don't Tell pissed me off enough that I told everyone and resigned my commission in the US Army.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2013, 10:03:39 PM by bocker3 »
Atripla - Started 12/05
Reyataz/Norvir - Added 6/06
Labs - Pre-Meds
Sep05 T=350/25% VL98,559
Nov05 288/18%  47,564
Current Labs
May2013 691/31% <20

Offline mecch

  • Member
  • Posts: 11,225
  • red pill? or blue pill?
"skim-milk marriage"  8)
“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Offline OneTampa

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,095
  • "Butterflies are free."
"He is my oldest child. The shy and retiring one over there with the Haitian headdress serving pescaíto frito."

Offline mecch

  • Member
  • Posts: 11,225
  • red pill? or blue pill?
It lost early, to Friends, in vultures Best Series Ever contest.
http://www.vulture.com/2013/02/golden-girls-vs-friends-sitcom-smackdown.html

But everyone is talking about how shows with messages and progressive politics are one important contribution to US culture changing on gay civil rights....  And Friends... Great show but very limited messaging...
“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Offline tednlou2

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,760
Something just dawned on me tonight.  Not sure why I didn't think of it before. 

I have friends from KY, who were married in states, such as New York.  We had actually planned to marry there on 12/12/12.  If DOMA is knocked down, then that would mean gay, married couples would be eligible for Social Security benefits and more, right?  Would those couples who married there from other states get those benefits, such as SS benefits?  Or, would you actually have to be a legal resident?  What about inheritance taxes? 

Are inheritance taxes tied to the state you legally reside in, or does it not matter?  Some people have homes/assets in different states that get passed along, after death.  If you married in New York and had assets there, such as property, but legally reside in KY, would the surviving partner be exempt from paying inheritance tax on the New York property, because you are a legally married couple there, but have to pay it for the KY home, because you wouldn't be considered a legal married couple here, and your name wasn't on the property?   

It is complicated and I am sure I am wording this very badly.  On the flip side, if you do legally reside in New York, but have a vacation home in Florida, would the surviving spouse be responsible for tax on the Florida home?  I always thought when talking inheritance tax on assets such as property, it didn't matter where that property was located.  The federal govt adds up the assets you inherited and gives you a tax bill.  They do not care where the assets are?  In a straight marriage, these question don't come up, because you're legally married in every state, so the spouse would be exempt.  And, does it all go back to legally residing in the state that recognizes gay marriages to reap the benefits? 






Offline tednlou2

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,760
Appears everyone here is stumped and confused, as well.  I think I found the answer.  Colbert had a guest on, who says if you marry in one of the gay marriage states and move to Georgia, then the federal government doesn't have to give you the benefits.  She seemed a little uncertain, to me.  I think most are, because it is new territory.  I would think the president would have the power to do some executive order to make the IRS, Social Security, etc, to include legally married gays, regardless of where they live now.

Colbert interview about the cases, and he asks the same question I had. 

http://m.comedycentral.com/colbertnation_video.rbml?id=supreme-court-hearings-on-gay-marriage---emily-bazelon

Modified to add Part 2 of interview

http://m.comedycentral.com/colbertnation_video.rbml?id=supreme-court-hearings-on-gay-marriage---emily-bazelon-pt--2

Offline buginme2

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,834
I.don't think that's right.  If you are legally married in Massachusetts and move to Texas that shouldn't affect your federal benefits.

Not only that, once DOMA is gone, technically if you are married in one state every other state would need to recognize it per the full faith in credit clause of the constitution.  However, that may be . another court fight.

Offline mecch

  • Member
  • Posts: 11,225
  • red pill? or blue pill?
I wish there were a power lesbian couple coming before the court, where one is black and the other white. And the black one is an ivy educated corporate lawyer and the white one a veteran, and public school teacher. And they could start making arguments about how they need to keep their marriage rights cause they are moving to a state where their marriage isn't recognised.. And the Judges ask questions showing that its up to the states, and how same-sex marriage rights are best dealt by the states. And the black woman addresses the court and says, there was a time when I would not have been able to
1)
and
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
listening all the civil rights guaranteed to her by Court decisions.

"But now you say I can't have the benefits of my marriage to my white wife because of some religious beliefs? Right, let me make sure I get this correct? "
“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Offline bocker3

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,358
  • You gotta enjoy life......
Assuming DOMA gets thrown out -- it will be interesting to see just how the federal benefits get applied.  I've read lots of differing opinions:

Only if you live in a state where same-sex marriage is legal
Every state
Only get benefits from the time of the ruling forward
Only get benefits from the time of the ruling forward, unless you have a pending lawsuit already filed -- then you "win"
Benefits would be retroactive

Time will tell -- I'm hoping for the most sweeping application, of course.  I want to get the federal benefits, even though I live in Virginia.  Plus -- if I could file an amended tax return for 2012 (when we got married) -- we'd get almost $3,000 back from the US Treasury!!

I kept waiting for someone to bring up the Full Faith & Credit clause -- moving from state to state should not "unmarry" you -- just like if your state lets you drive at a younger age than another, your driver's license doesn't become invalid when you cross state lines.  You may not be able to GET a license in that state, but you can still drive if you have a valid license from another.

Mike
Atripla - Started 12/05
Reyataz/Norvir - Added 6/06
Labs - Pre-Meds
Sep05 T=350/25% VL98,559
Nov05 288/18%  47,564
Current Labs
May2013 691/31% <20

Offline tednlou2

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,760
My friend from way back made this chart.  Just thought it was interesting.  He went to Harvard, so I guess I trust his data and analysis. 



Offline OneTampa

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,095
  • "Butterflies are free."


 :) :D
"He is my oldest child. The shy and retiring one over there with the Haitian headdress serving pescaíto frito."

Offline Joe K

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 3,493
Excellent column from Maureen Dowd in Today's NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/opinion/sunday/dowd-will-gays-be-punished-for-success.html?hp

I added my comment:

Joe Killfoile Montreal

Please stop referring to LGBT people as having a sexual preference. I'm gay and there is no way I would have chosen this sexual orientation, given the hatred, bigotry and physical violence against my community. I was born this way and there is nothing wrong with me. You demean an entire community of diverse individuals, when you suggest that how we are "wired sexually" is somehow a choice.

Nobody will ever understand what it is like to be a LGBT person, unless you are one. We did not choose to be born this way, yet we have made our way through centuries of hatred and discrimination. It's bad enough that our Supreme Court won't strike down discrimination against our community, we don't need people who have no idea, what it is like to LGBT, to be telling us who and what we are.

I do not want special rights, I want equal rights. I am a gay American citizen, seen by my own government, as a second class citizen. I'm also a Canadian citizen by birth and I now live in a county that values all of her citizens as perfectly equal. I waited almost sixty years, waiting for American to do right by me and she turned her back on me.

Please stop turning your back on millions of your LGBT citizens and give them the equal rights they have always deserved.

Joe

Offline OneTampa

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,095
  • "Butterflies are free."
Washington DC Metro Weekly article on Supreme Court proceedings noting Justice Kagan's "Z-Snap" worthy comments:

http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2013/03/elena-kagans-supreme-court-zinger.html
"He is my oldest child. The shy and retiring one over there with the Haitian headdress serving pescaíto frito."

Offline buginme2

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,834
Good news on the DOMA /marriage front today!


WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Department of the Treasury announced Thursday that when it comes to taxes, it will recognize same-sex couples' marriages even if they live in a state that does not.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/same-sex-couples-federal-taxes_n_3837444.html

Offline mitch777

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,360
  • wish i were here
YIPPIE!!!!! :) :) :)
31 years hiv+ (oct. 2013) with a curtsy.

Offline bocker3

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,358
  • You gotta enjoy life......
So glad that they are doing the right thing. 

Can't wait to refile our 2012 taxes and get back a good chunk of change.

M
Atripla - Started 12/05
Reyataz/Norvir - Added 6/06
Labs - Pre-Meds
Sep05 T=350/25% VL98,559
Nov05 288/18%  47,564
Current Labs
May2013 691/31% <20

Offline tednlou2

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,760
I am just amazed at how much change there has been in such a short time.

Offline oksikoko

  • Member
  • Posts: 680
  • Writing the congressman again
    • the treatment cascade
I seriously hope folks aren't getting their hopes up about a broad ruling.

btw Mitchell, are you married?

Haha, at first I thought you asked this because of the enthusiastic reply to that bottom comment...

I have a weird relationship to gay rights since I've been poz. While I wish them the best, it all seems removed now. I don't feel like that's my fight anymore somehow, like I can only handle being one minority at a time. I would be a terrible lesbian.

Edit: Obviously, I have a stake in it. I'm just talking about perceptions here, not reality.
Code: [Select]
2013-10-03:                ☣ VL (=) undetectable ☣ CD4 (+) 1105
2013-05-23:                ☣ VL (=) undetectable ☣ CD4 (-) 945
2013-02-25:                ☣ VL (-) undetectable ☣ CD4 (+) 1123
2012-12-16: Enter Stribild
2012-11-20: HIV+           ☣ VL (→) 132,683      ☣ CD4 (→) 920
2012-04-01: HIV-
Dates in this signature file conform to ISO 8601. ;-)

Offline tednlou2

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,760
I had the complete opposite reaction.  Marriage equality became so much more important, after I tested poz.  I tested poz in the hospital, at a time when I didn't have health insurance.  I mean, I obviously always wanted marriage equality.  However, it wasn't something I spent much time on.  But, having no insurance at the time and not being able to use my partner's insurance, really made me see how this was way more than just planning a wedding. 

Just giving my experience and not discounting your feelings.  I get where you're coming from. 

Offline Oceanbeach

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,565
Being a gay Californian and an honorably discharged veteran, I was questioning the use of the VA home loan because as a person disabled by AIDS, I do not have the income to qualify for this mortgage loan.  I contacted a gay realtor I know who is married, he did not know how the Veterans Administration was dealing with same sex marriage but referred me to the VA lender. 

His VA lender said neither myself nor my partner qualify for the VA loan unless we are married.  My income is too low, he is not a veteran but if we are not married and bring in the marriage license he will write the loan.  I can see my mother saying, "when I see a marriage license".   8)  Have the best day
Michael

Offline oksikoko

  • Member
  • Posts: 680
  • Writing the congressman again
    • the treatment cascade
I had the complete opposite reaction.  Marriage equality became so much more important, after I tested poz.  I tested poz in the hospital, at a time when I didn't have health insurance.  I mean, I obviously always wanted marriage equality.  However, it wasn't something I spent much time on.  But, having no insurance at the time and not being able to use my partner's insurance, really made me see how this was way more than just planning a wedding. 

Just giving my experience and not discounting your feelings.  I get where you're coming from.

Ha, I'm sure I'd feel differently if I had a partner and any of this affected me directly. ;)

And it's not really how I feel feel about it when push comes to shove. It's just a vague sense of otherness when I read about these issues lately. I feel more HIV+ than I do gay, I guess you could say. Though I'm pretty darn gay...
Code: [Select]
2013-10-03:                ☣ VL (=) undetectable ☣ CD4 (+) 1105
2013-05-23:                ☣ VL (=) undetectable ☣ CD4 (-) 945
2013-02-25:                ☣ VL (-) undetectable ☣ CD4 (+) 1123
2012-12-16: Enter Stribild
2012-11-20: HIV+           ☣ VL (→) 132,683      ☣ CD4 (→) 920
2012-04-01: HIV-
Dates in this signature file conform to ISO 8601. ;-)

Online Jeff G

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 10,766
  • How am I doing Beren ?
Re: Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) Up for US Supreme Court Review This Week...
« Reply #58 on: September 04, 2013, 02:05:05 PM »
This was interesting . Im not big on debating what would Jesus do on the social issues of the day but it is refreshing to see how many people who self identify as a christian and live outside of the LGBT community have come to see our issue as a basic human rights issue .

http://www.upworthy.com/a-pastor-asks-a-politician-why-he-supports-gay-marriage-it-seems-he-wasnt-prepared-for-his-reply?c=upw1

Offline mitch777

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,360
  • wish i were here
Re: Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) Up for US Supreme Court Review This Week...
« Reply #59 on: September 04, 2013, 02:21:16 PM »
This was interesting . Im not big on debating what would Jesus do on the social issues of the day but it is refreshing to see how many people who self identify as a christian and live outside of the LGBT community have come to see our issue as a basic human rights issue .

http://www.upworthy.com/a-pastor-asks-a-politician-why-he-supports-gay-marriage-it-seems-he-wasnt-prepared-for-his-reply?c=upw1

ps- nice avatar Jeff.  :P

Great clip! I wish every politician and every leader of a church who believes that their is something inherently wrong with being gay were required to watch it.
31 years hiv+ (oct. 2013) with a curtsy.

Offline buginme2

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,834
Re: Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) Up for US Supreme Court Review This Week...
« Reply #60 on: September 04, 2013, 02:47:13 PM »
I guess the United States doesn't have a monopoly on religious nuts.


Online Miss Philicia

  • Member
  • Posts: 23,883
  • celebrity poster, faker & poser
Re: Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) Up for US Supreme Court Review This Week...
« Reply #61 on: September 04, 2013, 03:02:01 PM »
I guess the United States doesn't have a monopoly on religious nuts.


If you've followed the news in France over the past year then you'd know that the anti-LGBT movement (which, frankly, seems 10 times over the top than in the US) isn't religious based.
"I’ve slept with enough men to know that I’m not gay"

Offline mitch777

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,360
  • wish i were here
Re: Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) Up for US Supreme Court Review This Week...
« Reply #62 on: September 04, 2013, 03:59:42 PM »
If you've followed the news in France over the past year then you'd know that the anti-LGBT movement (which, frankly, seems 10 times over the top than in the US) isn't religious based.

They remind me of the KKK. ::)

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2013/06/frances-flamboyant-shirtless-anti-gay-protesters-are-eyeing-tour-de-france/66172/
31 years hiv+ (oct. 2013) with a curtsy.

Online Miss Philicia

  • Member
  • Posts: 23,883
  • celebrity poster, faker & poser
"I’ve slept with enough men to know that I’m not gay"

Offline mitch777

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,360
  • wish i were here
Re: Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) Up for US Supreme Court Review This Week...
« Reply #64 on: September 04, 2013, 04:28:13 PM »
But you have to admire the flair for drama -- he would have made an excellent homosexual!
lol. sometimes it's best to just let them do their own thing and call it a day.
31 years hiv+ (oct. 2013) with a curtsy.

Offline Grasshopper

  • Member
  • Posts: 451
Re: Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) Up for US Supreme Court Review This Week...
« Reply #65 on: September 26, 2013, 01:52:20 AM »
Rome wasn't built in one day :

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/26/george-bush-sr-official-witness-same-sex-wedding

"In July, Bush Jr said he would not comment on the issue, saying he "shouldn't be taking a speck out of someone else's eye when I have a log in my own". He later explained that he would not answer the question because he was out of politics.

 


Terms of Membership for these forums
 

© 2014 Smart + Strong. All Rights Reserved.   terms of use and your privacy
Smart + Strong® is a registered trademark of CDM Publishing, LLC.