A SCOTUS Among UsFollow

I'm curious how currently Federal benefits are handled in first cousin marriages across state lines (Married in California, move to Nevada). I don't know how they are, but I'd imagine how ever they are handled will weigh in pretty heavily on how the SSM marriages will.

Edited, Jun 27th 2013 3:15pm by TirithRR

You'd have to go to Canada to get a Moose Ranch Permit.

From the looks of it, three states have laws voiding the marriage of first cousins who moved (as a married couple) into that state. And a whole bunch of "unknown"s.

I had assumed that all states reciprocated in observing that union. Shows what I know. Guess I never had reason to look into marrying my cousins.

I honestly don't know the answer to the second question. I could see an argument for saying that the feds should consider you married and an argument for saying they shouldn't. I guess the answer should be the same as "Do 'married' cousins in Arizona get federal benefits?"

Anyone know any married cousins in Arizona? Or have a hot cousin they'd be willing to run an experiment with? For political SCIENCE!?

Payments made via taxes or other fees to the US Treasury office.

What's your point? People can "not like" it if they want. It's already been ruled that prohibiting legally married SS couples from those funds on a federal level is unconstitutional. No, there won't be any movement (of any force) to redefine how the federal government assigns benefits and other affected payments.

Edited, Jun 27th 2013 3:23pm by Jophiel

Love the editorializing there. The reality is that they believe (as I do), that the purpose of the marriage benefits is to act as an incentive to get couples who might procreate to enter into a legally binding marriage prior to doing so. The problem is that when the laws were written at the federal level, no one considered that states might change their marriage laws to allow couples who can't possibly procreate to marry, so the benefits were tied to state issued marriage. Since that's changed, the benefits no longer make sense to tie to marriage, so the most logical course of action would be to remove the attachment of those benefits to "marriage", and tie them instead directly to Married couples with the potential for procreation" (or some similar language).

Let's remember that the courts have never ruled that these benefits cannot be tied to the sexual makeup of a couple, only that if you tie it to "marriage", you can't after the fact deny it to some marriages. If the benefits are tied to procreation from the get-go, that's no different than tying benefits to financial status, or health status, or any of a zillion other criteria we use to decide who can qualify for various benefits.

Will this happen? Can't say. But that will be what conservatives will be moving towards next. But yeah, barring the second part, they'd rather simply remove all federal benefits to married couples if the status quo is left in place. Those benefits serve no purpose otherwise.




Because you're thinking of this in an "us vs them" way, and not "do these benefits make sense"? I know that liberals think of benefits in terms of helping groups of people they like, but conservatives believe that benefits should have a purpose beyond just rewarding people we like. I suspect that this ruling will focus the issue more clearly on those benefits and their purpose. But time will tell, I suppose.

That wasn't the explanation, but the conclusion. You can't ignore the answer and say it wasn't there.

Yeah, but not well enough to marry 'em.

There must be a lot of imaginary text in that post that the rest of the world can't see because it sure as hell doesn't say what you think it says.

Here, let me quote the whole bit for you so you can read it again:

I don't see any arguments, facts or anything at all that makes me think that what you are saying is based in reality. In fact, you did quite the opposite by starting with saying that you are not a history buff before making your unsupported claim.

Shhh Aeth, he thinks using big words and antiquated language is sufficient. Jusby definition.t coo and tell him what a good boy he is.


[Edit]

It's unconstitutional to have a mandate that defies the constitution...

Also, this post is a good lesson on why you shouldn't post from your phone.

Edited, Jun 28th 2013 9:00am by idiggory

It certainly can be.

In the same sense that people believed the world was flat, the best way to cure psychosis was to drill a hole in someone's head, and that violence doesn't solve problems I guess.

What about same-sex couples who wish to adopt?