>>This was one of the more evil consequences of DOMA.
>>
>>
Department Of Homeland Security Finalizing Post-DOMA Rules For Immigrating Gay Couples
Elise Foley, Sam Stein
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/2 ... 58414.html
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration on Friday finalized new guidelines to allow same-sex couples the same immigration rights as their traditionally married counterparts.
The guidelines, which were issued by the Department of Homeland Security, were crafted in response to the Supreme Court's overturning of the Defense of Marriage Act. Under the guidelines, non-Americans who are married to a U.S. citizen would get the same consideration when applying for legal status, regardless of whether they are in a gay or straight relationship. In addition, DHS announced that those same-sex spouses who had previously petitioned immigration service officials for such status would have their files reopened, as opposed to having to re-file those petitions. DHS will also give consideration to same-sex couples who are engaged to be married but not married yet.
The change in U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services policy is another in a series of executive actions that have been taken to accommodate the Supreme Court's DOMA ruling. It is also further evidence of how significant that ruling has been in the lives of gay couples.
Following the court case, DHS had given out green cards, including to an American man married to a man from Bulgaria who were approved in June after previously being denied by DHS.
There are an estimated 28,500 immigrants with U.S. citizen partners, who have until now either relied on less stable visas and separate avenues for immigration or have been forced to live apart. The Williams Institute at the University of California has estimated that same-sex binational couples are raising nearly 25,000 children.
The DOMA decision was particularly important after immigration reform supporters in the Senate decided not to include provisions for same-sex couples in a bill that passed in June.
The new rules don't entirely fix the woes of same-sex binational couples, because they only apply to those legally married in states that allow for same-sex marriage. But immigration and gay rights advocates applauded the ruling and DHS' decision, which followed quickly thereafter.
DOMA is struck down as unconstitutional
-
Dave (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 6386
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2001 6:06 pm
-
Posting Rank
-
Dave (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 6386
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2001 6:06 pm
-
Posting Rank
Re: DOMA is struck down as unconstitutional
>>This will most likely be appealed but I doubt the appeal will succeed.
>>
Federal Judge Says DOMA Ruling Changes Private Companies Retirement Plans
http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/fe ... panies-ret
Following the [Supreme] Courts ruling, the term Spouse is no longer unconstitutionally restricted to members of the opposite sex, but now rightfully includes those same-sex spouses in otherwise valid marriages, judge rules. The decision makes Jennifer Tobits eligible for the death benefit provided by her deceased wifes former employer. posted on July 29, 2013 at 9:40pm EDT
Sarah Beth Alcabes, left, kisses girlfriend Meghan Cleary, both of California, after the U.S. Supreme Courts rulings in cases against the federal Defense of Marriage Act and Californias Proposition 8, outside the court in Washington, June 26, 2013. Image by Jonathan Ernst / Reuters
WASHINGTON A federal judge Monday ordered that a private companys retirement plan be interpreted to include coverage for the same-sex wife of a woman who had worked for the company as the surviving spouse under the plan.
Judge C. Darnell Jones II, a federal judge in Pennsylvania, reached his decision by applying the recent Supreme Court ruling opening the door for federal recognition of married same-sex couples to an existing federal law that provides tax benefits for private companies retirement plans that meet the federal standards, called the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).
Jones noted that ERISA was aimed at establish[ing] national uniformity among [employee retirement] benefit plans, and then examined the impact of the Supreme Courts June decision in United States v. Windsor striking down the federal ban on recognizing gay couples marriages in the Defense of Marriage Act on so-called ERISA-qualified plans.
Prior to the Courts decision in Windsor, he wrote, under the plain language of ERISA, the [tax] Code, and the Plan at issue in this case, qualified retirement plans were under no obligation to provide benefits to same-sex Spouses. Following the Courts ruling, the term Spouse is no longer unconstitutionally restricted to members of the opposite sex, but now rightfully includes those same-sex spouses in otherwise valid marriages.
ERISA, which establish[es] a floor for privately sponsored employee benefit plans with respect to spousal benefits, Jones wrote, had previously excluded same-sex couples. Windsor leveled the floor, he concluded.
In this case, Sarah Ellyn Farley had worked for Cozen OConnor, a law firm based out of Pennsylvania, during which time she married Jennifer J. Tobits in Canada. The couple lived in Illinois until Farleys death in 2010. Farleys parents and Tobits both sought payment of the death benefit under OConnors profit-sharing plan.
After deciding that Windsor opened the federally qualified plans to inclusion of same-sex couples, Jones appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush found that OConnor had intended to reap the benefits of being an ERISA-qualified plan and accordingly would provide the benefit to Tobits if she was the surviving spouse.
Sarah Ellyn Farley, left, and Jennifer Tobits on their wedding day. Image by Photo courtesy of Jennifer Tobits
The final, and most complex question, is whether the couple married in Canada, with the employee working for a Pennsylvania-based company, and living in Illinois had an otherwise valid marriage.
Examining the law, Jones stated, There can be no doubt that Ms. Tobits is Ms. Farleys surviving Spouse under the Plan in light of the Supreme Courts decision in Windsor.
He went on, however, to muddy those waters by stating somewhat contradictorily, Post-Windsor, where a state recognizes a party as a Surviving Spouse, the federal government must do the same with respect to ERISA benefits, and, The issue here regards the definition of Spouse as supplied by ERISA a federal regulation.
Jones first concluded that the laws of Pennsylvania which has a statute barring same-sex couples from marrying were irrelevant in this situation because the firms plan was intended to be covered by ERISA, and, under ERISA, what matters is only if the couple is legally married, not if the state where the company is based recognizes that marriage.
Jones then appeared to tie his ultimate conclusion that Tobits is the surviving spouse under the benefits plan to a finding that, Illinois, the couples place of domicile, would consider Ms. Tobits Ms. Farleys surviving Spouse. Jones did so, moreover, by stating in a footnote, As this Canadian marriage was deemed valid, albeit under the nominal title of civil union in Illinois, there can be no dispute that Ms. Tobits is a surviving Spouse pursuant to the Plan.
Shannon Minter, the National Center for Lesbian Rights attorney representing Tobits, said the ruling was as broad as Jones had begun describing in his decision that it applied to all legally married same-sex couples.
Todays decision is not only a victory for Jennifer and Ellyn, it is a victory for every married same-sex couple in the country. No longer can employers hide behind DOMA to deny equal benefits to some employees solely because their spouse is a person of the same sex, Minter said in a statement.
The ruling echoes the outcome recommended by the Department of Justice in a December 2011 filing in the case that was made before the Supreme Court ruled on DOMAs constitutionality. Section 3 of DOMA fails heightened scrutiny, and this Court should determine that it does not prohibit Ms. Tobits from being recognized as Ms. Farleys spouse under the Cozen Plan, Justice Department lawyers wrote at the time.
Chris Stoll, another NCLR attorney on the case, compared the decision to the governments implementation of immigration law and federal employee health insurance benefits, saying, We see this decision as showing that ERISA is going to be in that category of benefits that are included as long as the marriage was valid in the place of celebration, regardless of where the couple is.
Read the judges decision:
>>
Federal Judge Says DOMA Ruling Changes Private Companies Retirement Plans
http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/fe ... panies-ret
Following the [Supreme] Courts ruling, the term Spouse is no longer unconstitutionally restricted to members of the opposite sex, but now rightfully includes those same-sex spouses in otherwise valid marriages, judge rules. The decision makes Jennifer Tobits eligible for the death benefit provided by her deceased wifes former employer. posted on July 29, 2013 at 9:40pm EDT
Sarah Beth Alcabes, left, kisses girlfriend Meghan Cleary, both of California, after the U.S. Supreme Courts rulings in cases against the federal Defense of Marriage Act and Californias Proposition 8, outside the court in Washington, June 26, 2013. Image by Jonathan Ernst / Reuters
WASHINGTON A federal judge Monday ordered that a private companys retirement plan be interpreted to include coverage for the same-sex wife of a woman who had worked for the company as the surviving spouse under the plan.
Judge C. Darnell Jones II, a federal judge in Pennsylvania, reached his decision by applying the recent Supreme Court ruling opening the door for federal recognition of married same-sex couples to an existing federal law that provides tax benefits for private companies retirement plans that meet the federal standards, called the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).
Jones noted that ERISA was aimed at establish[ing] national uniformity among [employee retirement] benefit plans, and then examined the impact of the Supreme Courts June decision in United States v. Windsor striking down the federal ban on recognizing gay couples marriages in the Defense of Marriage Act on so-called ERISA-qualified plans.
Prior to the Courts decision in Windsor, he wrote, under the plain language of ERISA, the [tax] Code, and the Plan at issue in this case, qualified retirement plans were under no obligation to provide benefits to same-sex Spouses. Following the Courts ruling, the term Spouse is no longer unconstitutionally restricted to members of the opposite sex, but now rightfully includes those same-sex spouses in otherwise valid marriages.
ERISA, which establish[es] a floor for privately sponsored employee benefit plans with respect to spousal benefits, Jones wrote, had previously excluded same-sex couples. Windsor leveled the floor, he concluded.
In this case, Sarah Ellyn Farley had worked for Cozen OConnor, a law firm based out of Pennsylvania, during which time she married Jennifer J. Tobits in Canada. The couple lived in Illinois until Farleys death in 2010. Farleys parents and Tobits both sought payment of the death benefit under OConnors profit-sharing plan.
After deciding that Windsor opened the federally qualified plans to inclusion of same-sex couples, Jones appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush found that OConnor had intended to reap the benefits of being an ERISA-qualified plan and accordingly would provide the benefit to Tobits if she was the surviving spouse.
Sarah Ellyn Farley, left, and Jennifer Tobits on their wedding day. Image by Photo courtesy of Jennifer Tobits
The final, and most complex question, is whether the couple married in Canada, with the employee working for a Pennsylvania-based company, and living in Illinois had an otherwise valid marriage.
Examining the law, Jones stated, There can be no doubt that Ms. Tobits is Ms. Farleys surviving Spouse under the Plan in light of the Supreme Courts decision in Windsor.
He went on, however, to muddy those waters by stating somewhat contradictorily, Post-Windsor, where a state recognizes a party as a Surviving Spouse, the federal government must do the same with respect to ERISA benefits, and, The issue here regards the definition of Spouse as supplied by ERISA a federal regulation.
Jones first concluded that the laws of Pennsylvania which has a statute barring same-sex couples from marrying were irrelevant in this situation because the firms plan was intended to be covered by ERISA, and, under ERISA, what matters is only if the couple is legally married, not if the state where the company is based recognizes that marriage.
Jones then appeared to tie his ultimate conclusion that Tobits is the surviving spouse under the benefits plan to a finding that, Illinois, the couples place of domicile, would consider Ms. Tobits Ms. Farleys surviving Spouse. Jones did so, moreover, by stating in a footnote, As this Canadian marriage was deemed valid, albeit under the nominal title of civil union in Illinois, there can be no dispute that Ms. Tobits is a surviving Spouse pursuant to the Plan.
Shannon Minter, the National Center for Lesbian Rights attorney representing Tobits, said the ruling was as broad as Jones had begun describing in his decision that it applied to all legally married same-sex couples.
Todays decision is not only a victory for Jennifer and Ellyn, it is a victory for every married same-sex couple in the country. No longer can employers hide behind DOMA to deny equal benefits to some employees solely because their spouse is a person of the same sex, Minter said in a statement.
The ruling echoes the outcome recommended by the Department of Justice in a December 2011 filing in the case that was made before the Supreme Court ruled on DOMAs constitutionality. Section 3 of DOMA fails heightened scrutiny, and this Court should determine that it does not prohibit Ms. Tobits from being recognized as Ms. Farleys spouse under the Cozen Plan, Justice Department lawyers wrote at the time.
Chris Stoll, another NCLR attorney on the case, compared the decision to the governments implementation of immigration law and federal employee health insurance benefits, saying, We see this decision as showing that ERISA is going to be in that category of benefits that are included as long as the marriage was valid in the place of celebration, regardless of where the couple is.
Read the judges decision:
-
Riverwind (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 7558
- Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2001 1:58 pm
-
Posting Rank
Re: DOMA is struck down as unconstitutional
You know this is having a snowball effect, there is no turning back - same sex marriage will be the law of the land before you know it. Even some republicants have said this issue is over - we lost.
River
River
-
devi (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 1175
- Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 7:21 pm
-
Posting Rank
Re: DOMA is struck down as unconstitutional
For many years maybe a hundred, I don't know "inter-racial" marriages were not allowed in certain states. So if an "inter-racial" couple were married in New Mexico and then moved to Arkansas the marriage would be considered to be dissolved. The way around this was to both be "White" or "Colored or Black" or sometimes "Indian". Most Hispanics would put themselves down as "white" even though notoriously many are blacker than most blacks. There was also the fact that in one family unit all three "races" could many times be visually recognized but each member had the same familial facial features. So a new designation was created called "Hispanic". So what ended up was that the "inter-racial" aspect of marriage became even more convoluted. Did "inter-racial" children automatically become "Hispanics" and what about the Creoles of Louisiana, and even the fact that most "Blacks" are not pure African and so forth. Certain states never accepted the new term. So what was happening as far as "inter-racial" marriage was concerned was that you would have to figure out which court house to go to and and/or which race you would have to put yourself down as. Certain states as a whole were more accepting than others but it would still depend upon the county involved. This was happening for many generations here in the United States. For these reasons and for many others the concept of "inter-racial" marriage is not at very accurate at all but still for many generations this concept was upheld with certain states being more strict about it than others.
-
Riverwind (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 7558
- Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2001 1:58 pm
-
Posting Rank
Re: DOMA is struck down as unconstitutional
Court challenge fails to stop Calif gay marriages PAUL ELIAS 29 minutes ago Politics (http://news.yahoo.com/politics-and-government/)California (http://news.yahoo.com/california/)
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The California Supreme Court refused Wednesday to halt gay marriages in the state, leaving opponents of same-sex weddings few — if any — legal options to stop the unions.
The brief, unanimous ruling tossed out a legal challenge by ban supporters without addressing their legal arguments in support of Proposition 8, a ballot measure passed by voter in 2008 that banned gay marriage.
Austin R. Nimocks, an attorney for Alliance Defending Freedom, a group that wants to end gay marriage, said the ruling does not end the debate in California. He called on lawmakers to ban gay marriage but declined to say whether a legal challenge will be filed.
"Though the current California officials are unwilling to enforce the state constitution, we remain hopeful that one day Californians will elect officials who will," he said.
Supporters of gay marriage were girding for a continued fight.
"By now, I suppose we know better than to predict that Prop 8 proponents will actually give up their fight," San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said. "But it's certainly fair to say that their remaining legal options are increasingly absurd."
The state high court ruling came about two months after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider the issue, leaving in place a lower-court ruling that struck down the ballot measure as unconstitutional.
On June 28, Gov. Jerry Brown ordered county clerks to begin
Prop 8 supporters filed an emergency petition with the state Supreme Court arguing that the federal lawsuit at issue applied only to the two couple who filed it and to Alameda and Los Angeles counties, where they live. They claimed the marriage ban remained law in 56 counties since the federal lawsuit at issue wasn't a class action lawsuit on behalf of all California gay couples wishing to marry.
U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker previously issued a sweeping opinion saying Prop 8 violated equal protection guarantees in the U.S. Constitution by denying the two California couples a chance to marry in the state.
Prop 8 backers were briefly joined by San Diego County Clerk Ernest Dronenburg Jr., who filed a nearly identical legal challenge with the state Supreme Court last month urging an immediate halt to gay weddings.
Dronenburg, however, withdrew his lawsuit last week, saying his challenge was too similar to that of Prop 8 backers to merit a separate legal bid.
The far religious right is not happy about this but well there not happy about this.
OH Well.
River
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The California Supreme Court refused Wednesday to halt gay marriages in the state, leaving opponents of same-sex weddings few — if any — legal options to stop the unions.
The brief, unanimous ruling tossed out a legal challenge by ban supporters without addressing their legal arguments in support of Proposition 8, a ballot measure passed by voter in 2008 that banned gay marriage.
Austin R. Nimocks, an attorney for Alliance Defending Freedom, a group that wants to end gay marriage, said the ruling does not end the debate in California. He called on lawmakers to ban gay marriage but declined to say whether a legal challenge will be filed.
"Though the current California officials are unwilling to enforce the state constitution, we remain hopeful that one day Californians will elect officials who will," he said.
Supporters of gay marriage were girding for a continued fight.
"By now, I suppose we know better than to predict that Prop 8 proponents will actually give up their fight," San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said. "But it's certainly fair to say that their remaining legal options are increasingly absurd."
The state high court ruling came about two months after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider the issue, leaving in place a lower-court ruling that struck down the ballot measure as unconstitutional.
On June 28, Gov. Jerry Brown ordered county clerks to begin
Prop 8 supporters filed an emergency petition with the state Supreme Court arguing that the federal lawsuit at issue applied only to the two couple who filed it and to Alameda and Los Angeles counties, where they live. They claimed the marriage ban remained law in 56 counties since the federal lawsuit at issue wasn't a class action lawsuit on behalf of all California gay couples wishing to marry.
U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker previously issued a sweeping opinion saying Prop 8 violated equal protection guarantees in the U.S. Constitution by denying the two California couples a chance to marry in the state.
Prop 8 backers were briefly joined by San Diego County Clerk Ernest Dronenburg Jr., who filed a nearly identical legal challenge with the state Supreme Court last month urging an immediate halt to gay weddings.
Dronenburg, however, withdrew his lawsuit last week, saying his challenge was too similar to that of Prop 8 backers to merit a separate legal bid.
The far religious right is not happy about this but well there not happy about this.
OH Well.
River
-
devi (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 1175
- Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 7:21 pm
-
Posting Rank
Re: DOMA is struck down as unconstitutional
Meanwhile in New Mexico, the supreme court declined to consider the issue of same sex marriage sending the matter to the lower courts with the right of "expedited review" which means it'd get through the court review process quicker (in theory). This would put the matter mainly back to the Sandoval county courthouse where the 2004 marriages had occurred (Rio Rancho, town of Bernalillo, Jemez Springs, Cuba NM) although Santa Fe county and maybe populous Bernalillo county (Albuquerque) could figure prominently in what happens now. In the early sixties when New Mexico decided to ban all "same sex" marriages which were not allowed in any other state it did it by simply issuing a new official marriage application when required one male plus one female applicant. At that time only "backwards" people did that.
The matter is also being considered as an election matter.
The matter is also being considered as an election matter.
-
Riverwind (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 7558
- Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2001 1:58 pm
-
Posting Rank
Re: DOMA is struck down as unconstitutional
Its only a matter of time, same sex marriage will be the norm in just a few years nation wide, its an argument that the right wing can't win and they know it.
River
River
-
Dave (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 6386
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2001 6:06 pm
-
Posting Rank
Re: DOMA is struck down as unconstitutional
>>More news...
Another County official licensing and performing same sex marriage
>>
>>
New Mexico county issues gay marriage licenses in spite of statewide ban
8/21/2013 9:15pm by Becca Morn
http://americablog.com/2013/08/new-mexi ... e-ban.html
In New Mexico, Doña Ana County Clerk, Lynn Ellins, has announced that his office has begun
Ellins says he made this decision after reviewing the opinion of New Mexico State Attorney General Gary King, who said the states de facto ban on same sex marriage is unconstitutional under both state and Federal law.
From KQRE: (http://www.krqe.com/news/local/nm-count ... e-licenses )
In a statement, Dona Ana County Clerk Lynn Ellins said that he carefully read the state laws and concluded that the states marriage statutes are gender neutral and do not expressly prohibit Dona Ana County from
( )
Any further denial of marriage licenses to these couples violates the United States and New Mexico Constitution and the New Mexico Human Rights Act, Ellins said. Dona Ana County is upholding New Mexico law by issuing these marriage licenses, and I see no reason to make committed couples in Dona Ana County wait another minute to marry.
A separate story on KOB News mentions that at this time 11 licenses were issued, although an attached photo indicates the couple shown is the 17th to be granted a license by the Doña Ana office.
In a late-breaking development, State AG Gary King has said he will not challenge the action, and in fact will choose not to intervene or seek an injunction should any other county clerk anywhere in New Mexico decide to join Doña Ana county in issuing same-sex marriage licenses. King did warn however that these marriages could be invalidated if the State Supreme Court rules against marriage equality in the several pending cases.
This move came a day after a Santa Fe couple asked the NM Supreme Court to expedite handling of their challenge to the states current ban and refusal to recognize same-sex marriages. Previously, King had offered his opinion, but asked the county clerk offices to refrain from acting on it. This new position is a reversal.
Predictably, New Mexicos Governor Susana Martinez has expressed her belief that marriage is supposed to be limited to heterosexual couples only and repeated her preference if theres to be any change in the law, it be done not through the courts or even the legislature, but by popular vote.
New Mexico is unique in its legal situation vis a vis marriage equality. The state has a number of LGBT non-discrimination laws in place, including a ban on discrimination in matters of employment, housing, credit, public accommodations and union membership. There is also a state-level hate-crimes law covering sexual orientation and gender identity.
Unlike nearly every other state that does not recognize same-sex marriages, New Mexico does not have an explicit legal ban. That is, there is no law or constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between one man and one woman. Moreover, state law is entirely gender-neutral in its definition of who can enter into a legally valid marriage. The only exception to this is another law that defines the marriage license application form.
To further complicate matters, state law explicitly requires recognition of any legally enacted marriage, performed in any other state or country, subject to a short list of excluded marriages. These include under-age marriages, forced marriages, polygamous or group marriages, and so on. Conspicuously missing from that list: Same-sex marriages.
Youd think that would mean of course New Mexico recognizes same-sex marriages. Ive even seen news accounts get this wrong, claiming that even if theyre not performed here, the state recognizes out-of-state same-sex marriages.
At this time, New Mexico does not recognize same-sex marriages, no matter where they were performed. Hence although it is not an explicit legal ban, it remains a de facto ban. However the legal reasoning upon which this particular state policy lies is obviously very shaky. The only thing standing in the way of marriage equality is legal inertia, and the time it takes for the court challenges to be heard and ruled upon.
There is at this time no state where there is a greater likelihood or at least the strong possibility of a judicial ruling in favor of marriage equality rights.
Another County official licensing and performing same sex marriage
>>
>>
New Mexico county issues gay marriage licenses in spite of statewide ban
8/21/2013 9:15pm by Becca Morn
http://americablog.com/2013/08/new-mexi ... e-ban.html
In New Mexico, Doña Ana County Clerk, Lynn Ellins, has announced that his office has begun
beginning on the morning of Wednesday, 21 Aug 2013. (Doña Ana is home to Las Cruces, NM and is in the southern part of the state, right up next to the end of the Texas panhandle.)
Ellins says he made this decision after reviewing the opinion of New Mexico State Attorney General Gary King, who said the states de facto ban on same sex marriage is unconstitutional under both state and Federal law.
From KQRE: (http://www.krqe.com/news/local/nm-count ... e-licenses )
In a statement, Dona Ana County Clerk Lynn Ellins said that he carefully read the state laws and concluded that the states marriage statutes are gender neutral and do not expressly prohibit Dona Ana County from
gender couples.
( )
Any further denial of marriage licenses to these couples violates the United States and New Mexico Constitution and the New Mexico Human Rights Act, Ellins said. Dona Ana County is upholding New Mexico law by issuing these marriage licenses, and I see no reason to make committed couples in Dona Ana County wait another minute to marry.
A separate story on KOB News mentions that at this time 11 licenses were issued, although an attached photo indicates the couple shown is the 17th to be granted a license by the Doña Ana office.
In a late-breaking development, State AG Gary King has said he will not challenge the action, and in fact will choose not to intervene or seek an injunction should any other county clerk anywhere in New Mexico decide to join Doña Ana county in issuing same-sex marriage licenses. King did warn however that these marriages could be invalidated if the State Supreme Court rules against marriage equality in the several pending cases.
This move came a day after a Santa Fe couple asked the NM Supreme Court to expedite handling of their challenge to the states current ban and refusal to recognize same-sex marriages. Previously, King had offered his opinion, but asked the county clerk offices to refrain from acting on it. This new position is a reversal.
Predictably, New Mexicos Governor Susana Martinez has expressed her belief that marriage is supposed to be limited to heterosexual couples only and repeated her preference if theres to be any change in the law, it be done not through the courts or even the legislature, but by popular vote.
New Mexico is unique in its legal situation vis a vis marriage equality. The state has a number of LGBT non-discrimination laws in place, including a ban on discrimination in matters of employment, housing, credit, public accommodations and union membership. There is also a state-level hate-crimes law covering sexual orientation and gender identity.
Unlike nearly every other state that does not recognize same-sex marriages, New Mexico does not have an explicit legal ban. That is, there is no law or constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between one man and one woman. Moreover, state law is entirely gender-neutral in its definition of who can enter into a legally valid marriage. The only exception to this is another law that defines the marriage license application form.
To further complicate matters, state law explicitly requires recognition of any legally enacted marriage, performed in any other state or country, subject to a short list of excluded marriages. These include under-age marriages, forced marriages, polygamous or group marriages, and so on. Conspicuously missing from that list: Same-sex marriages.
Youd think that would mean of course New Mexico recognizes same-sex marriages. Ive even seen news accounts get this wrong, claiming that even if theyre not performed here, the state recognizes out-of-state same-sex marriages.
At this time, New Mexico does not recognize same-sex marriages, no matter where they were performed. Hence although it is not an explicit legal ban, it remains a de facto ban. However the legal reasoning upon which this particular state policy lies is obviously very shaky. The only thing standing in the way of marriage equality is legal inertia, and the time it takes for the court challenges to be heard and ruled upon.
There is at this time no state where there is a greater likelihood or at least the strong possibility of a judicial ruling in favor of marriage equality rights.
-
Riverwind (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 7558
- Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2001 1:58 pm
-
Posting Rank
Re: DOMA is struck down as unconstitutional
You know I thought it would take a couple years to get to this point, now I think it will be accepted nation wide in a very short time, like a year maybe two.
River
River
-
devi (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 1175
- Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 7:21 pm
-
Posting Rank
Re: DOMA is struck down as unconstitutional
From the rumour mill: As for New Mexico I am old enough to have known of an elderly gay couple in my mom's home town that had been married with the old wedding form. This was not sanctioned by the church of course. And then there had always been rumours of other such marriages in various other areas. At first people would know to insist upon using the old wedding forms and later with the new form sometimes one could get away with putting their name down in the male or female line even though they technically were not such since many judges did not see that as a necessary prerequisite. Certain jurisdictions tended to be much more lenient than others. However by the time Sandoval county in 2004 issued the gay weddings in bulk this practise had pretty much been gone or very much undercover. Although if only one or two of these licenses over the year had been issued they would have gone unnoticed by the media however once these 2004 licenses were news it was felt by the religious that this practise had to be stamped out.