10 Comments

• 

  OssanULTRA at 09:11 AM JST - 18th June

  So if a gay married couple can file California state taxes jointly? And how about the Federal? Do they become unmarried separate single people again? What about when they are in foreign countries? Will they be granted the same courtesies that a heterosexual married couple would be? For that matter will the fact that they are married in CA be recognized at all?

• 

  adaydream at 01:39 PM JST - 18th June

  Good questions and I'm sure that the Federal gov't is working their ass off to get those questions answered as quickly as possible. I mean the Federal gov't is doing their best to recognize everybody correct?

  I mean they tax you for cocaine if you're arrested trafficing cocaine. So I'm sure they'll have the tax code corrected this week to include gay marriages. < :-)

• 

  shimajiro at 02:19 PM JST - 18th June

  While I think it would have been much preferable for gay marriage to have been legalized via the ballot box rather than legislated from the bench the result is still to welcomed.

• 

  OssanULTRA at 09:34 PM JST - 18th June

  Since Resident Aliens in the US can sponser their parents, children and SPOUSES to obtain a permanent visa (green card), I guess the US Immigration peoiple will also have to re-write the codes. I can see all the terrorists trying to get in on gay-marriage visas already ;)

• 

  GJP2006 at 09:59 PM JST - 18th June

  On the federal immigration question - well, no. You see, immigration is regulated at the federal level and thus far, gays and lesbians are not allowed to sponsor their same sex spouses for immigration purposes. The Defense of Marriage Act was passed in the mid-90s and specifically prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages and granting federal benefits such as social security, immigration, etc. I expect this to change soon; there is a bill in the US Congress which would allow a US national to sponsor a same-sex partner for immigration purposes. If a Dem is elected in November and the Congress remains under Dem control it is sure to become law. One poster mentioned an interesting issue and that is the federal taxation issues. I would guess such couples would have to file separately and then jointly on the state level.

  much preferable for gay marriage to have been legalized via the ballot box rather than legislated from the bench

  Some rights should never be up to the ballot box and that is why we have a judiciary to balance state and citizen interests. Some of the most controversial racial and voting rights issues would never have been won at the ballot - it took courageous and bold justices to make the call.

• 

  shimajiro at 10:37 PM JST - 18th June

  Some rights should never be up to the ballot box and that is why we have a judiciary to balance state and citizen interests.

  I disagree. The judiciary should interpet and apply the law as it was intended by the lawmakers, not as they might wish it to be.

  Some of the most controversial racial and voting rights issues would never have been won at the ballot - it took courageous and bold justices to make the call.

  Almost certainly true - though in many cases the public support would likely have evolved in the same direction. But if the law only means what judges want it to mean rather than what they understand to be the intent of the applicable legislation, then the law means nothing. IMO, rule of law is much preferable to rule of men.

• 

  RomeoRamenII at 11:47 PM JST - 18th June

  California, the land of fruits and nuts.

  RR

• 

  adaydream at 12:40 AM JST - 19th June

  Washington, DC is also the land of fruits and nuts, also. Shall I remind you of Larry Craig and Mark Foley.

  At least when people are open and honest with their sexuality, they don't have to go to restroom stalls to fish for a date or send text messages to children.

  They're just people, but you and others like yourself want to villify gays and lesbians because you're perfect. < :-)

• 

  Madverts at 01:16 AM JST - 19th June

  Wow. Only one hateful comment from the Latent Brigade. Good to see these remaining people are joining the dinasours where they belong!

• 

  WhiteHawk at 01:36 AM JST - 19th June

  shimajiro:

  While I think it would have been much preferable for gay marriage to have been legalized via the ballot box rather than legislated from the bench the result is still to welcomed.

  GJP2006:

  Some rights should never be up to the ballot box and that is why we have a judiciary to balance state and citizen interests. Some of the most controversial racial and voting rights issues would never have been won at the ballot - it took courageous and bold justices to make the call.

  shimajiro:

  I disagree. The judiciary should interpet and apply the law as it was intended by the lawmakers, not as they might wish it to be.

  I think what happens in cases like this (and more and more frequently in the U.S.) is a blurring of the line between the judicial branch and the legislative branch of the government. Results and intentions aside, the judicial branch has definitely been overstepping its authority with increasing frequency.

  As OssanULTRA pointed out, there are still some details in need of sorting, and it will be intersting to watch it all unfold. I, for one, will be watching to see how these marriages are recognized by other states. No doubt the issue will get more media attention than my interest in having all of the other states recognize my Tennessee-issued Concealed Carry permit.

  Has anyone read the fine print of the California licenses? I'm just curious, because Taxachussetts requires the couples to be residents of the state, and Canada requires that at least one member from the couple live in Canada for a minimum of one year before a divorce can be processed.

Register or login to add a comment!