Supreme Court strikes down DOMA, Prop. 8
The flag outside the Live Violence Free office in South Tahoe. Photo/LTN
The U.S. Supreme Court today on a 5-4 vote has ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, and on another 5-4 vote said California’s Proposition 8 has no standing.
This means Proposition 8 is invalid and gays in California can marry. It is a California-only ruling.
The dissolution of DOMA means gay and lesbian couples who are legally married will be able to receive the same federal benefits as heterosexual married couples. This includes Social Security, disability, retirement benefits, worker’s comp, family leave and filing joint federal income tax returns. There are more than 1,000 benefits that will be affected.
In California 18,000 couples married in the brief time the state allowed gays to married. Those couples will be granted federal benefits with DOMA going away.
Here is a copy of the DOMA court ruling. Here is a copy of the Proposition 8 ruling.
President Obama tweeted his approval of the ruling, saying, “Love is love.”
— Lake Tahoe News staff report
Congratulations to all my LBGT friends who have persevered and overcome!
And my condolences to all the conservative bigots and talibornagains.
This decision isn’t just a good thing for the LBGT community, but for the entire nation as well (although I’m sure some may not see it that way!).
What a wonderful day in America. A great victory over the RATS(Roberts,Alito,Thomas,Scalia) and discrimination. There are still more court cases to come in the future for the LGBT community but this is the big one. The damage done to this country by this regressive conservative SCOTUS has been horrendous so any victory for “We the People” is all the more satisfying. Now let’s make So. Lake Tahoe the gay marriage capital of California!
Fairness, it’s a good thing :)
First of all, congratulations to the Supremes for coming to their senses. Equality for all!!!
LilPeter-not all conservatives are bigots just as not all liberals are non-bigots. I am a fiscal conservative and a social liberal (guess that makes me an independent) and I totally applaud the decision. I even agree with Obama’s comment….”Love is love”.
Incredible (if predictable) rant from Scalia. I’ve been joking that the man is either angry that he wasn’t elected Pope, or was under the impression that he’d been Pope all along. But the man is truly demented – and that’s no joke.
Bill I’m a little confused. Why are you calling them RATS, when it was Kennedy, Thomas, Alito and Sotomayor dissenting. Roberts voted for apparently, this is on page one of link in HOLLINGSWORTH v.PERRY of the decision. Or is was this ruling a separate issue also considered by the court. Could a staffer please either confirm or otherwise which justice voted what?
That’s Faaaabulous!
/really it is
Oh man, Angry Sky Man is going to be very angry about this. Son of Angry Sky Man is coming, look busy.
I wonder what will happen when some straight couple sue to get the domestic partnership registration in California invalidated, as it is now(or soon will be) unequal treatment as only gay couples and couples over 62, currently may do this. This means that they will either have to expand domestic partnership to not just the elderly and gays but to everyone that is cohabiting. Business will not want to see an expansion of these benefits to everyone that is shacking up together, it will cost them a ton of money.
Censorship by the Liberal media, my comment was deleted. By lake tahoe news. No wonder the country is going downhill, when only writings are only posted by one sided closed minded liberals!!!! Have fun thinking you people are right and that everyone agrees with you. You and your news sight is a joke, a real disgrace to My country and my right to free speech. Maybe this hits a little close to home Kae.
Observer,
You are observant. We took down your comment and another person’s who made parallels between homosexuality and the ability to have sex with animals. Why don’t you post your name so everyone can know what a bigoted jerk you are instead of anonymously calling others names. You are a coward. Go read something else. LTN would be happy for you to rot in hell.
Kathryn Reed, LTN publisher
Don’t hold back Kate, tell us how you really feel.
You missed the point Kae, the point is The institution of marrige is described as a man and a woman, and has been since time began. It is now disgraced. Where do we draw the line. A man loves his dog and the dog loves him??? A pedophile loves a child and the child loves him, getting pretty sick right?? I have no issue with partnership and equal benefits or unions, I really believe in equality, but don’t call it a marrige, that treads on my rights. Kae as a newsperson you shouldn’t get so upset, its not healthy!! You will probably censor this too, Like Hitler. Your own little world as you see it!!! a joke.
Observer — You would do the institution of marriage a great service by learning how to spell the word Marriage.
And how exactly is it treading on “your rights” You still have all the same rights you had before yesterday.
It is really a stretch to compare gay marriage to bestiality or pedophilia.
You are welcome to your opinion but alas it is just an opinion and not supported by facts.
LTN, I don’t think you should censor these comments by our foxNfriends wingnut bigots. You should just let the stupidity sit there for all to see.
Issues of journalistic standards are a valid concern, and something that needs to be addressed at Lake Tahoe News.
As for the topic at hand, my spouse and I have often commented to one another that we don’t feel our marriage is in any way threatened by gay marriage and we can’t fathom why anyone considers gay marriage a threat to the “institution” of marriage.
I can’t imagine Jesus spending any time or energy on this issue. He was all about making sure people got fed and housed and clothed and cared for. He rarely concerned himself with who slept with whom, and even helped spare an adultress from being stoned to death.
Christians need to focus of matters of real importance and let this go.
Bijou Bill has a good point, LTN. Let everyone have their say. Censor the language, perhaps, but not the message.
Freedom of Speech applies to everyone, with the exception of those who incite violence. If I want to be heard, then I have to allow those with whom I disagree to be heard as well.
Many people ignorantly link homosexuality with pedophilia and bestiality. They deserve the chance to have this misinformation corrected.
ADDED AFTER POSTING: Really? The word bestiality (sexual relations with animals) is automatically censored? The word is not profane, however offensive we find the act. Let’s be adults about this.
ADDED AFTER 2nd POSTING: But now it’s not automatically censored. Wow; this is confusing.
While there are some who have commented above about the moral impact of this topic, the biggest impact is financial.
Moral impact is personal and is negative to those who oppose it while it is positive to the people who can now be married.
The financial impact is that gay and lesbian couples will now pay fewer taxes (income and estate) while heterosexual couples will most likely end up paying more when taxes (both federal and state) are raised to make up for the lost revenue.
The State should see increased revenue from marriage licenses.
The wedding industry should see increased revenue with more weddings now being held.
If South Lake Tahoe attracts a good share of these new weddings, the local tourist industry should see more revenue also.
I noted once I posted that one of the words I used from the article was ******’d in my text.
Since this word is not offensive (to most people) and is used in the body of the article, I was surprised.
observer, please dont breed
tahoeadvocate — please explain why you think hetero couples will be paying more in taxes. If a “couple” is married, they are married.
Also a “moral impact” is self imposed.
I could never figure out why some people are so concerned with how two consenting adults choose to live their lives.
Kae (sorry I called you Kate earlier), I was amused by how upset you seemed but enjoyed the fact that you shared it with us. As, obviously, was your right.
I am active in several forums dedicated to my interests – all of those forums have standards published on their sites and enforced by moderators. The standards make the forums more enjoyable and useful for the participants and the need for them is obvious to anyone looking in on forums that are poorly moderated.
You don’t have time to waste moderating a forum. But, as a publisher, you enforce strict standards in your news reporting and publishing. I think you have every right, as well as an obligation to Lake Tahoe News and its readers, to enforce, at minimum, the same standards on the commenters that you expect in your newspaper.
Keep up the great work.
Observer, please explain how your rights are being treaded upon? What is being taken away from you? Also while you are at it, please explain how marriage is so sanctimonious with about half of all marriages in the US ending in divorce.
JohnS: the financial benefit for taxpayers of being married is a lower income tax rate and no estate tax when the first spouse dies.
With a new group of married couples, who previously paid more in tax, the revenue from income and estate taxes will go down.
When the taxes collected go down, either the government will spend less (do you believe that?) or raise rates to collect more from everyone. That says that married couples today will pay more on the same income while the new group of couples will see a lower tax even if rates go up because they now qualify as a married couple for taxes.
I agree the moral impact is self imposed. Observer is imposing it negatively while many others view it as a positive.
JohnS,
There is no “moral impact” that exists to that group of sociopaths that can only view important social issues in financial terms.
I think this is a civil rights issue. “We the People” won this decision yesterday but lost the Voting Rights Act issue the day before.
The struggle continues.
tahoeadvocate — If rates go up for a married couple then the same rates apply to newly married couples. There is not going to be two different tax rates if you are a hetero or homo couple.
I see what you are trying to say but it doesn’t make sense. Anyone who is “married” is going to pay the same rate.
I want to let people know that the editing of certain words that takes place is to allow you to read this site from work and not have certain words or tags show up in your cache.
TahoeAdvocate, if married straight couples aren’t considered a burden on the community because they pay lower taxes, why should married gay couples be considered burdensome?
Love the picture of the building Live Violence Free along with the flag. There is nothing like a non profit advertising to all of the taxpayers their exact political motivation and agenda. I think a California Flag and the American Flag would have better served the occasion.