Posted on 09/21/2013 7:35:00 AM PDT by WXRGina
But insurance is a STATE issue. How does the DOL come up with its rationale of dictating to states who they must cover?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Never heard of COBRA? HIPAA?
It is as exactly as you described when it comes to same sex marriage – “Moving to a different state does not “unmarry” them. The states which don’t allow same sex marriages can still ignore those couples for state purposes, but they don’t have a say over how the feds treat them.”No, Expat is absolutely correct. Section 2 just says that state law doesn't have to recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere.
You're forgetting one very crucial point: ALL of DOMA wasn't dismantled, Section 2 is STILL FEDERAL LAW. So, Perez is violating federal law by making this edict.
(a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. (b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.
This amendment is bolstered by the federal DOMA, which ALLOWS states to determine, operationally, the married status based on the marriage definition. If a federal government can simply interject its definition into a state, effectively nullifying that states marriage laws, then these marriage amendments are meaningless. This is EXACTLY what Section 2 of DOMA was meant to protect.
It's stupid and intellectually insulting to say that states may merely nominally refuse to "call" these unions entered into in other states "marriage," but in practice they must treat them as "marriages." The substance intended to be protected by such laws is EVERYTHING.
Nothing in what the feds have said interferes with how a state treats its citizens. If a same-sex couple marries in California and then moves to Texas, Texas is not forced to treat them as married. The state can continue treating that couple as single individuals - single tax returns, no special treatments upon death, etc.
Corporations, however, are not states nor are they political divisions thereof. They are not covered by the Texas Marriage Amendment. They are free to treat their employees in whatever manner they want. And, if they want to keep a federally qualified 401(k) plan, they have better treat that same sex couple from California as married. I suppose they can not treat that couple as married, but at that point they risk disqualifying their 401(k) plan. I believe there are dire consequences for that.
I’m glad fwdude posted that text too. That helped answer a question I wondered about.
Colleges and universities offer 403(b) plans instead of the 401(k) plans available to corporations. I imagine the same ERISA requirement apply to both types of plans. As such, the 403(b) plans will also have to recognize legally married same sex spouses. I wasn’t sure how that would work with a state university. But that text answers that question. Professors (and, more importantly, university football coaches) are employees of the university, not of the state.
It will be interesting to see how this one plays out.
Part (a) of our amendment defines marriage in Texas. It applies to everyone in the state - businesses, residents, etc. The fed has no legal right to state otherwise.
The marriage amendment is specific with regard to marriage within its borders. In Texas, marriage consists ONLY in the union of one man and one woman - FOR ALL PURPOSES WITHIN ITS BORDERS. No employer has to recognize, FOR ANY PURPOSE, any other construct. DOMA makes this so.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Fine. In the eyes of Texas, the same sex couple in my example are not married.
But that doesn’t change the fact that, in the eyes of California, that couple *is* legally married.
So the feds have to make a determination of which state to go with. Since the Supreme Court has told the feds that they have to honor legal same sex marriages, their hands are tied. Whatever Texas has to say on the issue does not change the fact that that couple is a legally married couple. Moving to Texas does not unmarry them. So when it comes to reading federal law, the feds have to follow the ruling of the Supreme Court. The couple is legally married. That’s it.
Texas is free to treat those folks as single people. They just can’t tell the feds how to treat those folks. And I guarantee that the feds will be looking at them as a married couple when it comes to filing their federal tax return!
No employer has to recognize, FOR ANY PURPOSE, any other construct. DOMA makes this so.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And, of course you’re right. No employer has to recognize same sex spouses from another state. They just have to then deal with the federal consequences of their choice. They will have disqualified plans. Up to them. No pressure. But have your tax accountant tell you just what that entails. Do you know how many hundreds of thousands of dollars upper management has in their 401(k)’s? Oh, they’re going to be real thrilled with the personal tax liabilities they’ll face!
Thank you for referencing that article WXRGina. Please bear in mind that the following critique is directed against Bryan Fischer, the author of the article, and not you. Mr. Fischer evidently did not take the time to research constitutional law concerning "government" power to regulate labor before writing the article.
Regarding the title of the referenced article, the remainder of this post will hopefully explain the following. The real "tyrant" that citizens are unthinkingly subjecting themselves to concerning the Labor Department imo, is actually their own inexcusable ignorance of the federal government's constitutonally limited powers. Such ignorance is evidenced by their reluctant "how high" response to the Labor Department's constitutionally indefensible order to "JUMP!" concerning the indicated benefits.
More specifically, the Founding States made the Constitution’s Sections 1-3 of Article I to clarify that all legislative powers of the federal government are vested in the elected members of Congress. So as I've mentioned in related threads, Congress has a constitutional monopoly on federal legislative / regulatory powers whether it wants it or not.
In other words, Congress doesn’t have the constitutional authority to delegate regulatory powers to nonelected bureaucrats imo, like those who run so-called "independent federal regulatory agencies" like the Labor Department and EPA. In fact, by unconstitutonally delegating regulatory powers to rogue federal agencies like the Labor Department, Congress is wrongly protecting federal legislative powers from the wrath of the voters in blatant defiance of the constitutonal statutes referenced above.
With the constitutionally toothless Labor Department's meaningess edict in mind, there's even more problems to consider. Even if Congress had the constitutional authority to delegate federal regulatory powers to nonelected government bureaucrats, it remains that the states have delegated to Congress, via the Constitution, only very limited power to regulate labor issues wihin a state’s borders. So not only is Congress wrongly delegating federal regulatory powers to nonelected bureaucrats like those running the Labor Department, but the Labor Department is greatly overstepping the federal government's limited power to regulate labor.
Note that Congress's limited power to regulate labor are as follows. The Constitution's Clause 17 of Congress's Article I, Section 8-limited powers indicates that Congress has unique legislative control in places like DC, military establishments and places like dockyards in states that have agreed to sell land to the federal government for such purposes.
Again, with the exception of limited places where Congress has exclusive legislative powers, the states have never granted the federal government, via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate issues like labor, such issues mostly under the 10th Amendment-protected control of the states.
Sadly, the reason that corrupt Congress is getting away with smoke-and-mirrors tricks to unconstitutionally expand its powers like establishing constitutionally undefined federal agencies such as the Labor Department is the following. Generations of parents have not been making sure that their children are being taught about the Founding States' division of federal and state government powers, Congress's limited constitutional powers evidenced by the Constitution's Section 8 of Article I.
What a mess! :^(
The constitutionally ignorant sheeple DESERVE unconstitutionally big federal government.
This will go to court, it’s guaranteed.
If a state’s constitutional DOMA is rendered null and void by edict of a lawless federal government agency acting in violation of federal law, then there is a legal problem.
“Actually, it comes under “Natural Selection” which is not a tragedy, but natures way of eradicating the freaks of nature (homosexuals) from the face of the earth.”
Same-sex attraction disorder in males is induced by trauma, as are post-traumatic stress disorder and rape-trauma syndrome. SSAD is caused by a homosexual rape or seduction in the pre-adult years. (Note that I said “pre-adult,” not prepubescent.)
IOW, it is something that is done *to* them, no matter how they may insist that they “wanted it.”
The good news is that SSAD is treatable, and I think that treatment would be more appropriate than eradication.
“So when it comes to reading federal law, the feds have to follow the ruling of the Supreme Court.”
Actually, they don’t. The legislative and executive branches are empowered by the Constitution to check power-grabs by the judicial branch.
IOW, they can tell the Supremes to pack sand when the Supremes exceed their Constitutional powers.
You are right in what you said. The problem is, as you also implied, America is a mass of uneducated drones (excepting those of us who actually have read and understand the Constitution and founding principles of the United States, of course).
Even though we have a gigantic entity of unelected bureaucrats with automatic weapons, how do we stop them, since the dastardly Congress is clearly unwilling to do so?
IOW, they can tell the Supremes to pack sand when the Supremes exceed their Constitutional powers.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Maybe so.
But so far both the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Labor have said that they will follow the Supreme Court’s ruling.
I was confused about what the Supreme Court did to DOMA because of the dust raised by the pro-gay media, including Obama guard dog Fx News, concerning the Court's decision. But now that the dust has settled, according to the information on Wikipedia's DOMA page, it turns out that DOMA has two substantial sections, and only one of these section, Section 3, was struck down.
Section 1. Short titleNoting that Congress has the authority under the Full Faith and Credit Clause (Section 1 of Article IV) to regulate the extent to which states must respect the records of other states, the remaining Section 2 of DOMA appears to preserve a given state's 10th Amendment protected power to protect traditional one man, one woman marriage regardless what other states have decided about marriage. Other opinions about DOMA's Section 2 are welcome.This Act may be cited as the "Defense of Marriage Act".Section 2. Powers reserved to the states
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.Section 3. Definition of marriage (ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court)
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
Unlike Muslims, I certainly wouldn’t execute homosexuals but would simply allow nature to take it’s course. Eventually, their procreation abilities will come up short and there will be fewer and fewer with the “innate desire toward homosexuality. My sister was raped at 14 and went lesbian. She even participated as a “Beard” once. Love her just the same.
Yes, it was widely misreported that DOMA was entire struck down, along with California's proposition 8 - both false reports.
The only issue in Windsor was a state's right to define marriage for one of its residents and for this resident to get the same federal benefits allowed for other "married" residents of that state. The perversionphiles harped on the "state's rights" argument incessantly throughout the trial and appeals, but it turns out that they actually have utter contempt for the concept of states' rights, as they want to trample the rights of the vast majority of states.
The prop 8 case was remanded back to a lower court for lack of standing, and a final decision has NOT yet been rendered on this issue, though the sodomite-media would have everyone believe that it was "found unconstitutional."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.