I don't see how the state of domicile has anything to do with it. The decision says that the Federal government must treat married citizens as married without regard to same-sex status. As I said, this is exactly what the plaintiffs sought and what the Court granted.Phineas J. Whoopee wrote:I don't think that's right.Aptenodytes wrote:Yes, that was what was the whole fuss was about and which the Court has now ruled on.frugaltype wrote:It would seem to me that if a couple went through a marriage ceremony in a jurisdiction where their marriage was legal, they'd be married for federal purposes regardless of where they live in the future.
Up until yesterday's decision, they were not married for federal purposes even if they lived in a state where same-sex marriage is legal, or one which had no same-sex marriage itself but chose, under DOMA section 2 (referenced above) to recognize other states' actions in respect, um, I'm not an attorney, really, thereof.
Now, for federal purposes, it depends on the federal purpose and perhaps on the state of domicile. This situation will take a long time to resolve in all details.
If my understanding is wrong I welcome correction.
You are right that there are numerous details to sort out, but that doesn't undermine the principal that has been established.