Do you know if there's a case about DOMA and the "full faith and credit" clause?
Tim Send a noteboard - 18/10/2012 10:05:11 PM
Initially I was confused about why this wasn't mentioned in your summary. Then I read the judgement and saw that the marriage took place in Canada, so the clause doesn't apply. But it seems pretty obvious to me that if one state refuses to recognise a marriage conducted in another state (as sec. 2 of DOMA purports to allow), that contravenes Art. IV sec. 1. of the Constitution. Windsor challenged sec. 3; is anyone challenging sec. 2?
Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt.
—Nous disons en allemand : le guerre, le mort, le lune, alors que 'soleil' et 'amour' sont du sexe féminin : la soleil, la amour. La vie est neutre.
—La vie ? Neutre ? C'est très joli, et surtout très logique.
—Nous disons en allemand : le guerre, le mort, le lune, alors que 'soleil' et 'amour' sont du sexe féminin : la soleil, la amour. La vie est neutre.
—La vie ? Neutre ? C'est très joli, et surtout très logique.
2nd Circuit rules in favor of Edith Windsor. DOMA unconstitutional.
- 18/10/2012 08:37:12 PM
1077 Views
Completely unsurprising since the Justice department refuses to defend the law.
- 18/10/2012 09:05:16 PM
654 Views
For a moment there I thought you were saying the Supreme Court had ruled it unconstitutional.
- 18/10/2012 09:10:16 PM
701 Views
Do you know if there's a case about DOMA and the "full faith and credit" clause?
- 18/10/2012 10:05:11 PM
771 Views
I don't know offhand, but my gchat friend will. If she pops on again, I'll ask her. But...
- 18/10/2012 10:37:09 PM
788 Views
I asked her about pending cases taking on Section 2. "None that I know of," she answered. *NM*
- 19/10/2012 12:46:21 AM
289 Views
I wonder about that one as well.
- 19/10/2012 12:39:54 AM
728 Views
Re: I wonder about that one as well.
- 19/10/2012 01:18:22 AM
728 Views
Either a ban discriminates against those affected more than those unaffected, or it does not.
- 19/10/2012 03:48:32 PM
624 Views
Gun control laws can equally affect everyone, though, is my point.
- 20/10/2012 10:52:41 PM
695 Views
I'm sure there is. The California case is likely to discuss it.
- 19/10/2012 02:48:02 PM
779 Views
I just have to note in passing that Ted Olsons memoires will make fascinating reading.
- 19/10/2012 04:44:15 PM
802 Views
Also, hooray! Let's hope SCOTUS adheres (if you use that term over there). *NM*
- 18/10/2012 10:59:14 PM
307 Views
As it should be; the DoMA was always a brazen affront to the Equal Protection Clause
- 19/10/2012 12:06:13 AM
849 Views
Not really
- 19/10/2012 02:16:04 PM
764 Views
Then by the "legal argument" you all propose I should have the "right" to marry a spoon...
- 19/10/2012 05:48:32 PM
688 Views
if your spoon or dog is capable of making power of attorney decisions then by all means do so *NM*
- 19/10/2012 06:41:43 PM
312 Views
How about I "marry" a corporation then. THAT is how stupid the entire arguement is. *NM*
- 19/10/2012 07:25:13 PM
306 Views
provide for us a legal reason why marrying a corporation should be recognized by the US gov't
- 19/10/2012 08:09:08 PM
752 Views
The argument above was that there was no jsutification it should not, thus it should be allowed.
- 19/10/2012 10:57:16 PM
762 Views
you are only offering your own emotional take on a legal decision there is no logic in your posts
- 19/10/2012 11:12:17 PM
677 Views
Wrong. I do not have an emotional stake in this, I am simply using logic. *NM*
- 22/10/2012 03:59:08 PM
320 Views
saying you should be able to marry a spoon or corporation is not logical reasoning. try again *NM*
- 22/10/2012 06:19:29 PM
298 Views
EXACTLY, and that was the point I was making. Congratualtions for figuring that out. *NM*
- 22/10/2012 11:34:46 PM
290 Views
you are obviously using some humpty dumpty definition of "logic" then *NM*
- 22/10/2012 11:40:12 PM
306 Views
No, you apparently failed reading comprehension in school.
- 23/10/2012 03:08:44 PM
684 Views
#1: fuck you. #2: you are still not using logic
- 23/10/2012 05:50:14 PM
655 Views
Ah yes, the fuck you argument... the height of all intelectual persuits... and you call ME emotional
- 23/10/2012 06:47:21 PM
729 Views
i see -- it's ok to be insulting as long as the "f-bomb" is not used. got it.
- 23/10/2012 10:27:54 PM
800 Views
Another good example of how corporations aren't the same as people. *NM*
- 19/10/2012 10:07:32 PM
313 Views
Would you be the bride? Would you wear white?
- 20/10/2012 07:58:52 PM
652 Views
You have obviously not read my posts very carefully
- 22/10/2012 04:23:22 PM
613 Views
Ah, the "I have Gay Friends" argument.
- 22/10/2012 09:33:41 PM
634 Views
No, I am not, try reading everything I have written on the subject before jumping to conclusions.
- 22/10/2012 11:41:05 PM
784 Views
It was only a matter of time.
- 19/10/2012 02:49:21 PM
685 Views
I do not understand why fundamentalists demand government dictate religion.
- 19/10/2012 03:22:54 PM
856 Views
Which is why the entire method of legal attack being mounted is dumb.
- 19/10/2012 05:53:12 PM
769 Views
the only ones forcing their beliefs down everyone's throats are people like yourself
- 19/10/2012 06:44:57 PM
737 Views
There is no right being denied...
- 19/10/2012 07:22:24 PM
696 Views
that is bullshit and you know it. or, alternatively, you do not understand legality in any way
- 19/10/2012 08:06:54 PM
769 Views
Re: that is bullshit and you know it. or, alternatively, you do not understand legality in any way
- 19/10/2012 11:11:55 PM
821 Views
nobody is arguing the legal right to marry, they are arguing about the legal rights marriage gives
- 19/10/2012 11:37:14 PM
680 Views
There are no "marriage rights" NONE, zip, ziltch, nada...
- 22/10/2012 04:18:15 PM
695 Views
why bother settling custody in a divorce then if there are no "marriage rights"?
- 22/10/2012 06:38:14 PM
608 Views
You are making one, huge factual mistake that is screwing up your entire argument:
- 20/10/2012 11:00:28 PM
721 Views