The debate moves to the states

Gay news sources are full of reactions and implications of yesterday's gay marriage rulings by the Supremes.

The end of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) had an effect within 30 minutes. There was a court hearing to determine if a Colombian man should be deported. He is married to an American man. The hearing was interrupted with the news of the ruling. Deportation was suspended. Thanks to Gabe the intern who dashed through five city blocks to get the ruling to the judge. Rachel Maddow includes that story in her report.

That report by Maddow, all 15 minutes (and well worth it), talks about the importance of these rulings. That's the first of 3 videos on this page. She focuses on the gay-rights case of 10 years ago, Lawrence v. Texas that said gay sex is not criminal. In horror, Scalia predicted that the case would be used to justify gay marriage. He was right -- Kennedy, who wrote both that ruling and this one cited the previous one. Scalia, still horrified, said in his dissent, that yesterday's ruling will bolster the case for gay marriage in states where their constitution bans it. And I agree, it will. But with hope, not horror.

Ari Ezra Waldman, who has a regular column on Towleroad to explain gay legal issues, explains both cases. In the Calif. gay marriage case he explains why the Supremes rejected the case. Even though the Calif. Supremes said the authors of the law have standing, federal law is very clear in saying they don't. They have a grievance, but they aren't injured.

In the DOMA case, even though the GOP House leadership brought the suit instead of the Justice Dept. they do have an injury as part of the gov't -- somebody in the gov't has to pay back Edie Windsor's $350,000 estate tax bill. It is the language of the ruling that is most important. Justice Kennedy wrote a lot about the importance of marriage and the dignity equality brings. These words will be used again.

The organization Freedom to Marry put out a fact sheet. It lists the various areas that are affected by the elimination of DOMA. These include bankruptcy, benefits for federal employees and the military, family and medical leave for non-federal employees, federal taxes, federal student aid, immigration (leaving gays out of the big immigration bill doesn't matter anymore), Medicare and Medicaid, employment benefits, Social Security survivors, veteran spousal benefits, and assistance to needy families.

Some news reports talked about how much gay couples will save in federal taxes. Rob Tisinai reminds us that not all the changes will save us money. There are also responsibilities -- the income of both couples will be used to determine student financial aid, for example. These are responsibilities that any couple in love would take on.

The leadership in the House -- who spent several million defending DOMA -- are saying the debate now moves to the states. That means the House leadership is done with the issue. They've accepted the ruling by the Supremes. Subtext: gays are no longer relevant to their reelection.

That's not true of all the House members. Tim Huelskamp of Kansas, surely playing to his base, announced he will introduce a federal marriage protection amendment. At least we're now confident it won't go anywhere. The last such amendment came in 2006 and came 54 votes short of the required 2/3 majority.

Money shifts to the states as well. Both marriage equality and anti-gay organizations are starting fundraising pushes for a state-by-state battle. Expect to raise at least $1 million per battle.

Civil unions were sold on the idea that they are identical to marriage except in name. Several states have this variety now, including New Jersey, Oregon, and Nevada. There were countless little ways where this was not true -- various businesses saying, "but that's for married couples." But now there is a really big, demonstrable difference between civil unions and marriage -- married couples get federal benefits. Civil union couples do not. This is the start of a fresh crop of lawsuits, starting at the state level.

Though the Supremes are done with rulings for this term, they had a couple bits of business for today.

In 2008 Arizona added domestic partner benefits for state employees. In 2009 Gov. Jan Brewer canceled them. In 2011 the 9th Circuit Court told Brewer she can't do that. Now the Supremes say they aren't taking the case, leaving the 9th Circuit ruling in place.

A challenge to Nevada's ban on gay marriage (they have civil unions that are supposed to be the same, see above) was denied by the Supremes. Though the high court doesn't explain why it takes or rejects a case, the assumption this time is because those seeking equality in Nevada asked to bypass the 9th Circuit.

Gay rights groups are laying out a five-year plan:

* In moderate states, such as Oregon, use a ballot initiative to overturn the constitution ban.

* In states that have civil unions same as marriage in all but name, aim for a court case.

* In more conservative states, work for expansion of gay rights, such as non-discrimination cases, and recognition of marriages celebrated elsewhere. This will get the citizens of those states at least talking about marriage equality to lessen a backlash when the Supremes rule again.

Yup, the goal is marriage equality across the country by 2018. Go for it!