Skip to main content

The title is, of course, ironic, but after reading ericlewis0's excellent diary on Chris Cristie's rejection of Medicaid expansion for New Jersey, and considering that in light of Cristie's position opposing marriage equality in New Jersey, I began to think about the linkage between these two seemingly distinct issues.

While watching the NewsHour's excellent coverage of the SCOTUS decision in US v. Windsor to throw out Section 3 of DOMA,  I found this quote from Kathleen Sibelius :

Today's Supreme Court decision finding the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional is a victory for equality, which is a core belief of this administration. It is also a victory for families, especially those children whose parents' legal same sex marriages can now be recognized under federal law.

As a result of today'™s ruling, the federal government is no longer forced to discriminate against legally married same sex couples. The Supreme Court's decision on DOMA reaffirms the core belief that we are all created equal and must be treated as equal. The Department of Health and Human Services will work with the Department of Justice to review all relevant federal statutes and ensure this decision is implemented swiftly and smoothly.

There is, at present, a patchwork of regulations regarding how Federal agencies determine if one is married.  Basically, they fall into two categories:  some are based on where the marriage is contracted and some are based on where you, the beneficiary, are domiciled.  This means that one can be considered married for one purpose, but not for another.  For example, the IRS defines one as being married if you are considered as such in your state of residence.  However, immigration law recognizes a marriage as being valid if it was such in the state or jurisdiction in which it was contracted.  

As a practical matter, until now, this distinction has largely been meaningless.  Because DOMA section 3 overrode any state's recognition of a marriage if it was not between a man and woman, it really didn't matter for the purposes of Federal benefits.  With the Windsor ruling having struck down Section 3, however, that distinction has now come to the fore.   As Sibelius' statement indicates, they are looking to harmonize how the components of Federal govenment judge the validity of marriages.  Speaking in Senegal about the Windsor ruling, the President said:

"My personal belief is that if you'™ve been married in Massachusetts and you move somewhere else, you're still married and that, under federal law, you should be able to obtain benefits like any lawfully married couple," he said, but added that he was voicing that view "as a president, not a lawyer."
While some might attempt to make much of his "as a president, not a lawyer" comment, I would simply suggest that he was expressing the natural reticence of any attorney when commenting on hundreds, if not thousands, of statutes and regulations which he has not personally reviewed.

Take a look below.  Here is a list of those states which currently recognize same-sex marriages:

New Hampshire
Rhode Island
New York

And here is a list of those states which have opted-out to Medicaid expansion:

North Carolina
South Carolina
South Dakota

and those leaning towards opting out:

New Jersey (given Cristie's veto since this map was made)

Notice anything?  Of course, only one state that recognizes same-sex marriages has rejected Medicaid expansion (Maine).   Some who have opted-in do not recognize such marriages, but all of those states which have rejected Medicaid expansion (with that one exception) also ban the recognition of gay marriages.  That means each one of them has decided to "subject" their citizens to the Federal exchange.  As a result, should the Obama Administration proceed to issue a regulation based on recognizing marriages based on the  place of contracting (as appears likely),then, the gay citizens of states opting out who have contracted a marriage with a same-sex partner in a state which does recognize such unions would be able to avail themselves of the family-based plans, regardless of the fact that their state does not recognize their marriage.  In fact, it is BECAUSE of their state's intransigence vis a vis Obamacare that they would be able to avail themselves of such rights.

The irony is delicious.

Right wing heads explode in 5,4, 3, 2...

Crossposted at The Motley Moose

Originally posted to It's the Supreme Court, Stupid on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 03:04 PM PDT.

Also republished by Community Spotlight.


How will the right wing react when discovering that their rejection of Obamacare advances the Gay Agenda?

0%0 votes
41%48 votes
14%17 votes
43%50 votes

| 115 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site