June 14, 2013

"Obama’s Pen May Shape Scope of Marriage Ruling."

NYT headline. The article is about what the administration might have to do after the Supreme Court issues its opinion on the Defense of Marriage Act.

If the justices do strike it down, they will sweep aside a law that has for years prohibited gay couples from receiving a vast array of federal benefits that married couples take for granted. But whether gay couples actually get those benefits would depend on where they live — and how vigorously President Obama seeks to change the legal language that determines whether a couple is married in the eyes of the federal government....

Activists... are warning gay couples not to expect that federal benefits would arrive immediately, because government agencies vary widely in how they determine whether a couple is legally married.

Some federal agencies, like the I.R.S. and the Social Security Administration, make that determination by looking to the state where a couple lives....  Other agencies, like the Defense Department, already base their decision on the location of a couple’s wedding, regardless of where the couple lives now.... There are more than 1,100 places in the federal statutes where rights or benefits are based on a person’s marital status, according to one analysis by advocates for same-sex marriage....

Opponents of same-sex marriage say the legal questions surrounding the definition of marriage were a key argument behind the passage of the act in the first place....

30 comments:

Renee said...

What was the goal of creating federal laws around marital status to begin with? Something in DOMA which was never addressed, which is awkwardly written. Did they write it poorly on purpose?

edutcher said...

Willie was wagging the dog.

Monica.

But this line seems to nail the whole same sex marriage "debate" - whether gay couples actually get those benefits would depend on where they live — and how vigorously President Obama seeks to change the legal language that determines whether a couple is married in the eyes of the federal government

Our First Lesbian Capo needs to shore up his constituencies.

And we all thought he'd had his last election.

gerry said...

The headline is curiously phallic. Or perhaps not so curiously.

Achilles said...

Isn't having the federal government in charge of every detail of our lives great?

Mitchell the Bat said...

"Obama’s Pen May Shape Scope of Marriage Ruling."

Somehow I doubt the president can work a lathe.

Titus said...

His pen could refer to his hog.

Or it could be a very faggy pen with a huge feather coming out of it.

edutcher said...

The headline off Drudge says it all...

"Obama Introduced at WH Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender Event -- By Third-Graders..."

Bet he doesn't let them near you-know-who.

Steve Reynolds said...

Those federal agencies love to rewrite rules.

Marshal said...

There are more than 1,100 places in the federal statutes where rights or benefits are based on a person’s marital status, according to one analysis by advocates for same-sex marriage

So step one is to use the existence of these benefits to get the government to decide it has the authority / standing to redefine marriage. From the Slate article we see step two is an effort to eliminate these benefits entirely.

But since the step two effort shows it's possible for the government to eliminate these benefits why is that not the appropriate government remedy to charges of discrimination against gays in marriage?

We know the answer: because gay marriage activists are engaging in culture wars where honesty and philosophy are not considerations, and this method wins two battles instead of one. But this point disproves the leftist spin trying to argue gay marriage is "conservative".

BarrySanders20 said...

Should be;

Obama's Pen is Key to Gay Marriage Ruling

edutcher said...

Could be our First Lesbian Capo has finally jumped the shark (make up your own...)

The White House announces it has the papers of (I kid you not) the Founding Founders.

Our little Zero, always taking idiocy where no man has gone before.

Bender said...

What was the goal of creating federal laws around marital status to begin with?

The purpose of DOMA is to prevent individual states from imposing their own particular laws upon other states and upon the federal government. For example, the state of Massachusetts should not be able to dictate to Virginia what constitutes marriage in Virginia. Neither should Massachusetts have the power to compel the federal government to adopt its ideas on marriage.

Freder Frederson said...

The White House announces it has the papers of (I kid you not) the Founding Founders.

The White House announces it has the papers of (I kid you not) the Founding Founders.

Our little Zero, always taking idiocy where no man has gone before.


Really?! What is your point here? How is the White House announcing the National Archives has completed a multi-year project to get important historical documents online "idiocy"?

Freder Frederson said...

For example, the state of Massachusetts should not be able to dictate to Virginia what constitutes marriage in Virginia.

I thought we had settled that debate (and not in the way you think) with Loving v. Virginia. You might also want to brush up on the full faith and credit clause.

Darleen said...

Hello Freder?

Reading comp issue here ... the PC Obamabots put up "Founding FOUNDERS" rather than "Founding FATHERS"

A clunky, obvious and ridiculous sop to Lefts "nudging" to a 'gender-neutral' language.

Which goes directly to your sad little excuse of trying to drag Loving into the same-sex marriage debate.

hint: Race is a myth. Sex is not.

sheesh

Bender said...

You may want to brush up on the difference between a man marrying a woman, as in Loving, and a man purporting to marry a man. Race is not relevant to marriage, sex is.

Freder Frederson said...

the PC Obamabots put up "Founding FOUNDERS" rather than "Founding FATHERS"

A clunky, obvious and ridiculous sop to Lefts "nudging" to a 'gender-neutral' language.


Actually the more reasonable assumption is that it was a typo as the White House Blog has been corrected to "Founding Fathers".

Jane said...

So what's going to happen when gay-married couples suddenly find out that filing jointly costs them instead of benefitting them? (And the 1000 references to marriage are not 1000 rights and benefits, but 1000 places where marriage is referenced, often to one's detriment.)

Palladian said...

So what's going to happen when gay-married couples suddenly find out that filing jointly costs them instead of benefitting them?

Hopefully they will do what every married couple, gay or otherwise, should do, which is to eschew government "marriage".

Palladian said...

"Founding Fathers"

Intelligent people prefer calling them "The Framers".

Crunchy Frog said...

Intelligent people prefer calling them "The Framers".

I prefer calling them "The General Contractors".

The Godfather said...

I suggest that the first thing that Obama should do, if the Supreme Court strikes down DOMA, is to consult a good constitutional lawyer to read the Court's opinion. The opinion will probably cast light on the question the NYT raises.

Actually, the VERY FIRST thing Obama should do is recite 100 times, "I am not a constitutional lawyer".

Darleen said...

Actually the more reasonable assumption is that it was a typo

Yep, sure ... just a couple of rogue White House writers

That's the ticket!

Titus said...

Nice Rack Darleen!

Yowza!

Eric said...

Because just enforcing the law would be too much to ask for this clown.

ken in sc said...

One girl I flirt with said, “If you weren't already married, I could marry your wife.” I thought that was funny. Then I thought more about it, and concluded that she is right. If they change the rules, we can all marry each other. We can be one big happy family.

n.n said...

Reality can be confusing and is often inconvenient. Perhaps that's why adherents to the "theory" of evolution so often deny evolutionary principles when it serves to harsh their mellow.

Anyway, the homosexual activists, and their heterosexual supporters, are guilt of a unique bigotry. Once they chose to deny the terms and circumstances of reality, then there can no longer be any legitimate basis for denying incorporation (e.g. marriage) to anyone or anything.

Palladian said...

n.n can bore everyone into impotence with its writing.

Titus said...

Darleen's knockers knocked me out.

Hubba. Hubba. Hubba.

Nancy Danielson said...

Marriage, by its very essence, is restrictive to begin with because not every couple can exist in relationship as husband and wife. This does not change the fact that men and women are designed in such a way that it is impossible for two persons of the same sex to engage in same-sex sexual acts without demeaning the inherent personal and relational Dignity of the human person. No State or person should condone or affirm any type of demeaning sexual act.
As the mother of a daughter that developed a same-sex sexual attraction as the result of the perfect storm that included a date rape when she was a freshman in college by a young man she knew and trusted, I know my daughter is suffering from a severe emotional developmental issue. It is because I Love my daughter as I Love all my children, that I desire she learn to develop healthy relationships and friendships that are respectful of herself, and desire the good of the other.