I don't know offhand, but my gchat friend will. If she pops on again, I'll ask her. But...
Burr Send a noteboard - 18/10/2012 10:37:09 PM
There was a case back a while ago that involved that clause. It was the one where two lesbians who had gotten married in one state were seeking divorce in another.
I'm pretty sure the Ninth Circuit ruling also dealt only with Section 3, but I might be wrong on that.
So it may very well come up when the SCOTUS decides to hear a case. For now, they've just been letting the various circuit courts have their say, to ensure there is in fact a controversy and to allow time to generate a good body of arguments to consider.
I'm pretty sure the Ninth Circuit ruling also dealt only with Section 3, but I might be wrong on that.
So it may very well come up when the SCOTUS decides to hear a case. For now, they've just been letting the various circuit courts have their say, to ensure there is in fact a controversy and to allow time to generate a good body of arguments to consider.
||||||||||*MySmiley*
Only so evil.
Only so evil.
This message last edited by Burr on 18/10/2012 at 10:41:45 PM
2nd Circuit rules in favor of Edith Windsor. DOMA unconstitutional.
- 18/10/2012 08:37:12 PM
1152 Views
Completely unsurprising since the Justice department refuses to defend the law.
- 18/10/2012 09:05:16 PM
716 Views
For a moment there I thought you were saying the Supreme Court had ruled it unconstitutional.
- 18/10/2012 09:10:16 PM
774 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
840 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
863 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
329 Views
I wonder about that one as well.
- 19/10/2012 12:39:54 AM
810 Views
Re: I wonder about that one as well.
- 19/10/2012 01:18:22 AM
813 Views
Either a ban discriminates against those affected more than those unaffected, or it does not.
- 19/10/2012 03:48:32 PM
716 Views
Gun control laws can equally affect everyone, though, is my point.
- 20/10/2012 10:52:41 PM
767 Views
I'm sure there is. The California case is likely to discuss it.
- 19/10/2012 02:48:02 PM
868 Views
I just have to note in passing that Ted Olsons memoires will make fascinating reading.
- 19/10/2012 04:44:15 PM
863 Views
Also, hooray! Let's hope SCOTUS adheres (if you use that term over there). *NM*
- 18/10/2012 10:59:14 PM
366 Views
As it should be; the DoMA was always a brazen affront to the Equal Protection Clause
- 19/10/2012 12:06:13 AM
924 Views
Not really
- 19/10/2012 02:16:04 PM
832 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
754 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
345 Views
How about I "marry" a corporation then. THAT is how stupid the entire arguement is. *NM*
- 19/10/2012 07:25:13 PM
345 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
824 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
841 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
757 Views
Wrong. I do not have an emotional stake in this, I am simply using logic. *NM*
- 22/10/2012 03:59:08 PM
358 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
371 Views
EXACTLY, and that was the point I was making. Congratualtions for figuring that out. *NM*
- 22/10/2012 11:34:46 PM
344 Views
you are obviously using some humpty dumpty definition of "logic" then *NM*
- 22/10/2012 11:40:12 PM
340 Views
No, you apparently failed reading comprehension in school.
- 23/10/2012 03:08:44 PM
752 Views
#1: fuck you. #2: you are still not using logic
- 23/10/2012 05:50:14 PM
732 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
805 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
867 Views
Another good example of how corporations aren't the same as people. *NM*
- 19/10/2012 10:07:32 PM
351 Views
Would you be the bride? Would you wear white?
- 20/10/2012 07:58:52 PM
742 Views
You have obviously not read my posts very carefully
- 22/10/2012 04:23:22 PM
686 Views
Ah, the "I have Gay Friends" argument.
- 22/10/2012 09:33:41 PM
709 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
850 Views
It was only a matter of time.
- 19/10/2012 02:49:21 PM
762 Views
I do not understand why fundamentalists demand government dictate religion.
- 19/10/2012 03:22:54 PM
927 Views
Which is why the entire method of legal attack being mounted is dumb.
- 19/10/2012 05:53:12 PM
831 Views
the only ones forcing their beliefs down everyone's throats are people like yourself
- 19/10/2012 06:44:57 PM
810 Views
There is no right being denied...
- 19/10/2012 07:22:24 PM
758 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
861 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
903 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
763 Views
There are no "marriage rights" NONE, zip, ziltch, nada...
- 22/10/2012 04:18:15 PM
757 Views
why bother settling custody in a divorce then if there are no "marriage rights"?
- 22/10/2012 06:38:14 PM
678 Views
You are making one, huge factual mistake that is screwing up your entire argument:
- 20/10/2012 11:00:28 PM
783 Views