I'm sure there is. The California case is likely to discuss it.
Tom Send a noteboard - 19/10/2012 02:48:02 PM
The case is Perry v. Schwarzenegger Brown (the governor of California having changed in the interim). I have always thought this was the best of the cases for a writ of certiorari, because when reviewing it the court is almost certainly going to be required to discuss the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and the result is likely to be that DOMA is unconstitutional, that Prop 8 is unconstitutional and that any other state statute would be as well.
Political correctness is the pettiest form of casuistry.
ἡ δὲ κἀκ τριῶν τρυπημάτων ἐργαζομένη ἐνεκάλει τῇ φύσει, δυσφορουμένη, ὅτι δὴ μὴ καὶ τοὺς τιτθοὺς αὐτῇ εὐρύτερον ἢ νῦν εἰσι τρυπώη, ὅπως καὶ ἄλλην ἐνταῦθα μίξιν ἐπιτεχνᾶσθαι δυνατὴ εἴη. – Procopius
Ummaka qinnassa nīk!
*MySmiley*
ἡ δὲ κἀκ τριῶν τρυπημάτων ἐργαζομένη ἐνεκάλει τῇ φύσει, δυσφορουμένη, ὅτι δὴ μὴ καὶ τοὺς τιτθοὺς αὐτῇ εὐρύτερον ἢ νῦν εἰσι τρυπώη, ὅπως καὶ ἄλλην ἐνταῦθα μίξιν ἐπιτεχνᾶσθαι δυνατὴ εἴη. – Procopius
Ummaka qinnassa nīk!
*MySmiley*
2nd Circuit rules in favor of Edith Windsor. DOMA unconstitutional.
- 18/10/2012 08:37:12 PM
1142 Views
Completely unsurprising since the Justice department refuses to defend the law.
- 18/10/2012 09:05:16 PM
705 Views
For a moment there I thought you were saying the Supreme Court had ruled it unconstitutional.
- 18/10/2012 09:10:16 PM
757 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
824 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
850 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
319 Views
I wonder about that one as well.
- 19/10/2012 12:39:54 AM
789 Views
Re: I wonder about that one as well.
- 19/10/2012 01:18:22 AM
797 Views
Either a ban discriminates against those affected more than those unaffected, or it does not.
- 19/10/2012 03:48:32 PM
688 Views
Gun control laws can equally affect everyone, though, is my point.
- 20/10/2012 10:52:41 PM
755 Views
I'm sure there is. The California case is likely to discuss it.
- 19/10/2012 02:48:02 PM
853 Views
I just have to note in passing that Ted Olsons memoires will make fascinating reading.
- 19/10/2012 04:44:15 PM
850 Views
Also, hooray! Let's hope SCOTUS adheres (if you use that term over there). *NM*
- 18/10/2012 10:59:14 PM
353 Views
As it should be; the DoMA was always a brazen affront to the Equal Protection Clause
- 19/10/2012 12:06:13 AM
912 Views
Not really
- 19/10/2012 02:16:04 PM
818 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
743 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
337 Views
How about I "marry" a corporation then. THAT is how stupid the entire arguement is. *NM*
- 19/10/2012 07:25:13 PM
338 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
813 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
828 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
732 Views
Wrong. I do not have an emotional stake in this, I am simply using logic. *NM*
- 22/10/2012 03:59:08 PM
351 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
350 Views
EXACTLY, and that was the point I was making. Congratualtions for figuring that out. *NM*
- 22/10/2012 11:34:46 PM
330 Views
you are obviously using some humpty dumpty definition of "logic" then *NM*
- 22/10/2012 11:40:12 PM
333 Views
No, you apparently failed reading comprehension in school.
- 23/10/2012 03:08:44 PM
739 Views
#1: fuck you. #2: you are still not using logic
- 23/10/2012 05:50:14 PM
721 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
787 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
853 Views
Another good example of how corporations aren't the same as people. *NM*
- 19/10/2012 10:07:32 PM
341 Views
Would you be the bride? Would you wear white?
- 20/10/2012 07:58:52 PM
711 Views
You have obviously not read my posts very carefully
- 22/10/2012 04:23:22 PM
672 Views
Ah, the "I have Gay Friends" argument.
- 22/10/2012 09:33:41 PM
697 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
836 Views
It was only a matter of time.
- 19/10/2012 02:49:21 PM
748 Views
I do not understand why fundamentalists demand government dictate religion.
- 19/10/2012 03:22:54 PM
912 Views
Which is why the entire method of legal attack being mounted is dumb.
- 19/10/2012 05:53:12 PM
820 Views
the only ones forcing their beliefs down everyone's throats are people like yourself
- 19/10/2012 06:44:57 PM
796 Views
There is no right being denied...
- 19/10/2012 07:22:24 PM
749 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
844 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
884 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
748 Views
There are no "marriage rights" NONE, zip, ziltch, nada...
- 22/10/2012 04:18:15 PM
742 Views
why bother settling custody in a divorce then if there are no "marriage rights"?
- 22/10/2012 06:38:14 PM
665 Views
You are making one, huge factual mistake that is screwing up your entire argument:
- 20/10/2012 11:00:28 PM
773 Views