[Leaters]

As the court itself said, SCOTUS will be the final arbiter.

[15Praxanant]

My evil plan to destroy the fabric of society is progressing along just fine.

[Qynvtlur]

Yes, it's time for me to fess up. I'm a bigot for not tolerating bigotry.

[G8whlTAe]

But its a narrow decision that the SCOTUS would likely feel comfortable with - federal benefits which attach to a state determination of marriage shouldn't be denied to some states' determination due to federalism concerns. Two edged sword. There are far more states that you'd be compelling to abide by a standard contrary to their wishes via federal taxation. Reynolds is pretty clear that you cannot have two marriage standards in the US. Having some states approving X and other states approving Y, is actually unconstitutional. The Feds have the power to set the marriage law in this example (as they did previously outlawing polygamy).

[remstaling]

You are so full of crap. Not at all. Part of the constitutional powers of the federal government includes control over naturalization. That includes spousal immigration visas to the United States. Changing the definition of marriage changes the immigration visas. Essentially, you would end up with a conflict between states that would not recognize a marriage, to which someone had recieved a visa. And we all know how that would end up working out.

Different age limits to marry indicate that there are multiple marriage standards in the US. Also see certain states allowing 1st cousins to marry and other states banning the practice. Reynolds discusses both of these, and argues that the tradition of the Common Law provides for variances along age and 1st cousins. It does not provide accommodation for polygamy and homosexuality, arguing that one man and one woman is a core part of marriage, whereas changes in the age limit is not.

Reynolds also argues that while the federal government has the responsibility to enforce the common law definition, they do not have the right to change the definition, any more than they could change habeaus corpus. Hence prohibiting changes to the Common Law definition.

In addition, Reynolds v. United States applied to Mormons living in Utah TERRITORY, meaning they had no state government, but the United States was their "state government". Reynolds was decided in 1878, while Utah wasn't made a state until 1896. Reynolds goes on to say that admission as a state would require adherance to the English Common Law definition. If it were a state power, then Utah could have simply became a state and then passed laws permitting polygamy. Reynolds explains why that doesn't work, and why the definition has to be uniform across the United States, and goes on to finish with why that definition should permit only one man and one woman to marry.

So, in short - setting age limits and degrees of consanguinity, ok. Polygamy and homosexuality, not ok.

[Andrew1978]

I don't know what Ben is talking about. No one is arguing that they have a religious duty to marry someone of the same sex. Read the whole decision. Reynolds clearly explains why it has to be one uniform definition across the United States.

[RarensussyRen]

I think looking at 19th century Supreme Court decisions to answer social questions is bold and daring.

[JAMES PIETERSE]

The NYT article in the OP sure does bury the important facts about this decision. Only one section of DOMA was nullified, and states that don't allow gay marriage still don't have to recognize gay marriages performed in states that do.

[ethigSmimbine]

Reynolds also argues that while the federal government has the responsibility to enforce the common law definition, they do not have the right to change the definition

Why am I not surprised that Ben has no clue what common law jurisprudence is.

Reynolds discusses both of these, and argues that the tradition of the Common Law provides for variances along age and 1st cousins. Locate the word "cousin" in the opinion please:

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/fede.../145/case.html

Reynolds goes on to say that admission as a state would require adherance to the English Common Law definition. Once again, locate that in the opinion please.

[vosteglog]

DOMA never changed this.

Under the law, no U.S. state or political subdivision is required to recognize a same-sex marriage treated as a marriage in another state.

...

The main provisions of the act are as follows:

Section 2. Powers reserved to the states

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

One thing left uncertain in Thursday’s ruling was the impact of the ruling on legally married gays who now live in states that refuse to recognize any such marriage. A part of DOMA that deals with this point — Section 2, giving states permission not to recognize such a marriage performed in another state — was not at issue before the First Circuit.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/05/do...arriage-falls/

[DenisLevvin]

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. So the Federal government won't be issuing spousal visas? Can a state refuse entry?

[JacomoR]

Gosh Imran, what kind of lawyer asks people to support their claims with evidence???? Some lawyer!

[Ephejvll]

It is USCIS (which is Federal) which determines whether there is a marriage/relationship or not and then issues the visa, not a state. Ergo - it is a power of the federal government, not the states. That's the consequence of the issuance of the marriage visa. States cannot deny entry, but the federal government can.

No state would be required to observe a marriage. What would happen is that people would be legally married under the federal government, and receiving benefits in the federal government and would be petitioning state governments for similar recognition. So yes, the legal consequence would be the the states would be forced to recognise it.

At worst you have gay couples taking a vacation to gay friendly states to get married. Given all the other expenses and hassles, and the potential to double up the vacation as a honeymoon, it's not going to be a big issue even then. It is going to be a huge issue. First thing we are going to see, is someone going to Texas petitioning the Texas state government for recognition, and going from there. I'd lay my house on it. All the liars saying that the 'states will not be forced', bullshit. It's a federal issue. Always has been. If it wasn't a federal issue, than Utah could have been admitted with polygamy. They were not.

The marriage would have already happened. USCIS would determine if the marriage was valid and whether or not to issue a visa. The state is not involved at all. Hence my point. The states have no say whatsoever.

[BonjGopu]

Reynolds also states quite clearly, "And BTW, if two homos ever want to get married a century or so from now, then this decision about religious polygamy should be applied. Because that's obviously what I'm talking about. Also, remember to avoid eating pork and shellfish, even if we develop the technology to make it safe." It uses the marriage law standard under James VI/I, as the standard for the Court. If you can find recognition of gay marriage there, be my guest.

[scewDeasp]

I haven't been surprised in the last 10 years on this issue. SSDD. You wanna bet with me that we won't be seeing gay people petitioning individual states? I'll take your bet. How much you want to wager?

Petitioning individual states? This case has nothing to do with that, whatever it is. Once again you've wandered off into your own little alternate universe. This case concerns whether same-sex couples with valid marriage licenses from states that recognize their marriage are entitled to the same federal benefits as any other married couple. It's completely different from a supreme court case over whether "it's my religion" is a valid excuse for breaking the law.

[Hbkj89D2]

Petitioning individual states? This case has nothing to do with that, whatever it is. Once again you've wandered off into your own little alternate universe. Already seen it happen. Assuring people that 'you absolutely won't be forced to recognise it'? Bullshit.

[ebonytipchik]

Already seen it happen. Assuring people that 'you absolutely won't be forced to recognise it'? Bullshit.

I still have no idea what you're talking about. I don't think the Supreme Court is going to rule that all states must offer marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

[gimffnfabaykal]

None of that backs any of the arguments you are making (and I was pretty sure you'd attempt to make those exact phrases say what they are not - for one it is "exclusive dominion of the US" because it is, as stated by me and in the opinion itself a TERRITORY), but I am not surprised. Then why did the US require Utah to forbid polygamy when they became a state?

[tetMitshisk]

Then why did the US require Utah to forbid polygamy when they became a state?

The US reserves the right to deny statehood applicants for whatever reason.

[jabader]

The US reserves the right to deny statehood applicants for whatever reason. So you're stating that effectively, the power to regulate marriage resides with the federal government? Thank you.