General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJust curious: What will DOMA decision mean for federal employees, military families, etc...
Just curious, what exactly will be the effects of the DOMA decision on say a gay, married federal employee who gets transferred to a state which does not recognize his marriage? Could he or she request not to transfer due to the discrimination they could face?
What about gay military members and military families? What if they are placed in or transferred to a military base that is in a state that does not recognize marriage? What about bases overseas where families live with them, say in Europe? If they were married in a gay marriage state, is their relationship recognized and family housing offered? The same, I suppose, could be said of overseas jobs for non military Federal jobs.
Any opinions? Thoughts? Points? It certainly is interesting to think about.
cynatnite
(31,011 posts)It changes everything and makes marriage equality more likely in states where it's not legal.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)I know that goes without saying.
cynatnite
(31,011 posts)Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)All federal benefits that go to traditional marriage couples will go to you as well. Taxes, inheritance, all marriage benefits. But that only applies if you are married in a state that recognizes same sex marriage.
Now, the next battle, state recognition. Somewhere as we speak, someone is filing a lawsuit that the state of (Insert one of the 37 here) does not recognize your spouse, and you want to get a divorce. You can't get a divorce in this state, despite being a resident with your spouse, because your marriage is not recognized. Then transportability will be argued, and recognition of other states jurisdictions over such matters, and then it will be argued that it should be legal in all states.
Geoff R. Casavant
(2,381 posts)One partner dies, and the other wants the privileges accorded to a surviving spouse -- statutory allowances, homestead protection, and so forth.
If anyone in the Houston area is now or may soon be in this boat, give me a ring.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)In tricare, get housing benefits...not be discriminated when the service member dies and get benefits.
It is huge.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I'm the spouse of a Foreign Service Officer (we're a straight couple) and this has been an issue for some of our friends. State recognized gay marriages I believe in 2009. Before then, same-sex spouses could travel and live with an FSO but did not get a work visa (I'll get a work visa when we go to Mumbai later this year so I'll be able to get a job on the local economy). They also were not evacuated with Embassy personnel in an emergency but were on their own. This happened a few times, and it was worse because the FSO was ordered out because of his security clearance and his husband had to get out on his own.
The State Department absolutely has to stand up for full accreditation of diplomats and their families at all times, because that way lies madness (if Saudi Arabia refuses to accredit a gay diplomat, will Jewish diplomats be next? etc.) However, FSOs and their families are still bound by local law (diplomatic immunity isn't what a lot of people think it is). The result is an uneasy truce where states like Saudi Arabia simply accredit whomever we present and don't ask any questions.
As a practical question, countries where a gay couple's safety couldn't be assured generally are for other reasons considered "hardship" posts to begin with, which means the families don't travel with the diplomat.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)Glenn Greenwald can come home to the US. Doesn't have to live in Brazil anymore. No more claiming that he can't because of his partner. Well, they'll have to get married. But bi-national couples can not now be denied visas.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/26/the-supreme-court-struck-down-doma-heres-what-you-need-to-know/
What are you waiting for, Glenn?
BanTheGOP
(1,068 posts)This, to me, is the BIGGEST win for our side as we can now force churches to marry those other than male/female unions at the risk of losing their tax-exempt status. It will be a lot easier to challeng church taxation policies in this regard.
monmouth3
(3,871 posts)kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)don't want to. AND YOU KNOW IT.
BanTheGOP
(1,068 posts)...we have the progressive duty to do so.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)We have no RIGHT, and progressives have no such duty.
Eff off, troll.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)It really is the worst kind of trolling.
Liberal Veteran
(22,239 posts)No church is forced to marry people against their own doctrine. Nor should they be.
In providing public services, it is a different matter, but they free to set their own rules about who can marry in their church (just like Catholics are free to prevent divorced people from remarrying).