Obama government will stop defending the DOMA
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 18, 2024, 09:48:49 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Obama government will stop defending the DOMA
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8
Author Topic: Obama government will stop defending the DOMA  (Read 13999 times)
Lunar
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,404
Ireland, Republic of
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #150 on: February 25, 2011, 10:02:13 PM »

Thought-provoking thought of the day:

Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,580
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #151 on: February 25, 2011, 10:16:01 PM »

Bacon King has a great point that I never thought of before. How would that legal conundrum be handled?
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #152 on: February 25, 2011, 10:34:33 PM »

Even besides its anti-gay bigotry, the DOMA is an iffy law regardless.

Let's say Brittain33 here decides to move to, say, South Carolina. This state, through DOMA, doesn't recognize his marriage to another man. He could thus legally marry a woman there. Per the US Constitution, his home state would be forced to recognize his South Carolina marriage even though he already has a recognized marriage with his MA husband and polygamy is illegal. Confusing legal hellhole waiting to happen.

This is interesting. Someone should try it. Probably would not be hard to do.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #153 on: February 25, 2011, 10:45:21 PM »

Even besides its anti-gay bigotry, the DOMA is an iffy law regardless.

Let's say Brittain33 here decides to move to, say, South Carolina. This state, through DOMA, doesn't recognize his marriage to another man. He could thus legally marry a woman there. Per the US Constitution, his home state would be forced to recognize his South Carolina marriage even though he already has a recognized marriage with his MA husband and polygamy is illegal. Confusing legal hellhole waiting to happen.

Why wouldn't South Carolina be forced to recognize the Massachusetts marriage sufficiently to deny this potential bigamist the right to marry a woman in South Carolina until the Massachusetts marriage was dissolved.

Indeed, under the full faith and credit clause, one could argue that if a same-sex couple moved to South Carolina, their marriage would instantly become null and void under South Carolina law and this under Massachusetts law.  (South Carolina law explicitly calls for this at present if I'm understanding the meaning of the law latin they are using. [SC ST SEC 20-1-15])

Now if one husband moved by himself to South Carolina and the other husband remained in Massachusetts, that might cause a problem, but no more so than any other marriage case where a marriage would be valid in one State, but not the other.  For example, in Massachusetts, it is legal for a man to marry his son's wife after his son's marriage has ended, but not in South Carolina.  Granted, not a common case (and an odd one since both states prohibit a man from marrying his grandson's wife, his grandfather's wife, or his stepmother, so it probably is an unintentional omission from the Massachusetts law.)

More common would be that Massachusetts and South Carolina differ on the age at which one can marry, with Massachusetts allowing it earlier than South Carolina does, if there is parental consent.  (One source gives an absolute minimum of 12 for females and 14 for males in Massachusetts, but if there are absolute lower limits it's not in the chapter of marriage laws that are available online for the commonwealth.)

In any case, there probably is applicable case law from the days before the Loving v. Virginia decision that would adjudicate what happens in the case where one member of a marriage valid in a State moves to another State where that marriage is not valid and then enters into another marriage there.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,932


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #154 on: April 25, 2011, 10:53:39 AM »

The law firm hired by Congress to represent them and defend DOMA has dropped the case.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/law_firm_drops_doma_defense_leaves_house_gop_at_the_altar.php?ref=fpi

I'm surprised that the House Republicans can't find some law firm they know well that would take tons of money to wage this fight for them and lose with dignity before the base. All Congress has to do is get out the national checkbook and write a big blank check to whichever law firm happens to have some former Pubbie congressmen among its partners... everyone's happy.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #155 on: April 25, 2011, 11:23:11 AM »

Bacon King has a great point that I never thought of before. How would that legal conundrum be handled?

The same way that first cousin marriages are handled. They are void in the states that do not permit such behavior.
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #156 on: April 25, 2011, 05:44:13 PM »
« Edited: April 25, 2011, 05:46:39 PM by Verily »

Bacon King has a great point that I never thought of before. How would that legal conundrum be handled?

The same way that first cousin marriages are handled. They are void in the states that do not permit such behavior.

Not true, mostly. The states vary, but at least some have held otherwise. For example, the Arkansas Supreme Court (the most recent state court to address the issue, in 1986), found that Arkansas had to recognize out-of-state cousin marriages even though cousin marriage was expressly forbidden in Arkansas. A similar case was decided on a technicality in Arizona in 2005.

I don't think there has ever been a federal Constitutional challenge on the issue via Full Faith and Credit, so the federal courts have never considered the issue. Hard to see them finding for the state looking to deny recognition, though.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #157 on: April 25, 2011, 10:01:19 PM »
« Edited: April 25, 2011, 10:12:00 PM by krazen1211 »

Not true, mostly. The states vary, but at least some have held otherwise. For example, the Arkansas Supreme Court (the most recent state court to address the issue, in 1986), found that Arkansas had to recognize out-of-state cousin marriages even though cousin marriage was expressly forbidden in Arkansas. A similar case was decided on a technicality in Arizona in 2005.

I don't think there has ever been a federal Constitutional challenge on the issue via Full Faith and Credit, so the federal courts have never considered the issue. Hard to see them finding for the state looking to deny recognition, though.

I'll try to find the case law. Part of the rationale that President Bush had for the Federal Marraige Amendment was the FF&C clause, but legal scholars pointed out at the time that no court had ever used the FF&C clause to force a state to accept any marriage contrary to its public policy.

State courts might be a different issue.

I believe this is the Arizona case, though. Seems to me like they're quite clearly leaning towards the voided category, in that they chose to apply Arizona law rather than Virginia law.





http://www.docstoc.com/docs/19666380/Cook-v-Cook-Arizona-Court-of-Appeals-1
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #158 on: April 26, 2011, 02:38:45 PM »
« Edited: April 26, 2011, 02:45:45 PM by Verily »

None of the state cases addressed FF&C. They were all based on their state constitutions and statutes. There's very little case law on the matter even in that regard, and nothing on the Constitution. Not sure why; one would figure the plaintiffs would at least try the argument. Maybe they all had bad lawyers (not that surprising; cousin marriage isn't exactly seen as a pressing civil rights issue, so no pro bono or public interest backing, and probably these challenges are not being brought by people with money).

The result in the Arizona case was that they found the Arizona law forbidding cousin marriage did not apply to out-of-state cousin marriages performed before the law was passed, so they had to recognize the marriage, which doesn't address the core issue at all (although it does suggest that Arizona, which did not ban gay marriage until 2008, might have to recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere before 2008 if someone challenged the ban).
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,721


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #159 on: April 26, 2011, 06:36:25 PM »

The law firm hired by Congress to represent them and defend DOMA has dropped the case.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/law_firm_drops_doma_defense_leaves_house_gop_at_the_altar.php?ref=fpi

I'm surprised that the House Republicans can't find some law firm they know well that would take tons of money to wage this fight for them and lose with dignity before the base. All Congress has to do is get out the national checkbook and write a big blank check to whichever law firm happens to have some former Pubbie congressmen among its partners... everyone's happy.

Well the lawyer who took the case will continue to represent the House, just not the law firm, who was bullied out of representing the House by gay rights activists.   He resigned from the firm.

Bullying lawyers to not represent someone because you disagree with the position taken is extremely low - something these gay rights activists should keep in mind the next time they need representation.
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,959


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #160 on: April 26, 2011, 06:49:57 PM »

Oh those poor straight conservatives. Always being bullied Roll Eyes
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,721


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #161 on: April 26, 2011, 06:57:10 PM »

Oh those poor straight conservatives. Always being bullied Roll Eyes

I should have known better than to say anything opposing the gay rights agenda on this website.  I will say nothing further than what I said earlier - pressuring law firms because you don't agree with the position they take on behalf of their clients is simply wrong.  Everyone deserves fair representation from counsel.

I'm done commenting on this thread unless something else happens.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #162 on: April 26, 2011, 07:38:29 PM »

If that is the reason the firm dropped the case, then I must say that is entirely despicable and thuggish behavior, that should be unacceptable and it shouldn't be tolerated from any group of activists regardless of what they support.
Logged
bullmoose88
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,515


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #163 on: April 26, 2011, 08:10:07 PM »

If that is the reason the firm dropped the case, then I must say that is entirely despicable and thuggish behavior, that should be unacceptable and it shouldn't be tolerated from any group of activists regardless of what they support.

Not the firm's fault for lacking the cajones to take up a case concerning some great moral issue eh?
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #164 on: April 26, 2011, 08:14:09 PM »

If that is the reason the firm dropped the case, then I must say that is entirely despicable and thuggish behavior, that should be unacceptable and it shouldn't be tolerated from any group of activists regardless of what they support.

Not the firm's fault for lacking the cajones to take up a case concerning some great moral issue eh?

I didn't say that. If I was going to say that, I would have, but of course I didn't so don't be ridiculous. Roll Eyes
Logged
bullmoose88
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,515


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #165 on: April 26, 2011, 08:16:34 PM »

If that is the reason the firm dropped the case, then I must say that is entirely despicable and thuggish behavior, that should be unacceptable and it shouldn't be tolerated from any group of activists regardless of what they support.

Not the firm's fault for lacking the cajones to take up a case concerning some great moral issue eh?

I didn't say that. If I was going to say that, I would have, but of course I didn't so don't be ridiculous. Roll Eyes

All the focus is on the bullying...what bullying exactly...the disappointment expressed here should be directed at the firm...which seems to have balked with seemingly little pressure.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #166 on: April 26, 2011, 09:30:05 PM »

If that is the reason the firm dropped the case, then I must say that is entirely despicable and thuggish behavior, that should be unacceptable and it shouldn't be tolerated from any group of activists regardless of what they support.

Not the firm's fault for lacking the cajones to take up a case concerning some great moral issue eh?

I didn't say that. If I was going to say that, I would have, but of course I didn't so don't be ridiculous. Roll Eyes

All the focus is on the bullying...what bullying exactly...the disappointment expressed here should be directed at the firm...which seems to have balked with seemingly little pressure.

Since have I lost to right to focus on what I want to focus on. I really don't give a damn what anyone else has focused on in this thread. An it isn't my responsibility to ensure some kind of balance. If you are so worried about it, then you should bring it up, which you have. Problem solved.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,932


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #167 on: April 27, 2011, 06:58:05 AM »
« Edited: April 27, 2011, 07:02:30 AM by brittain33 »

Well the lawyer who took the case will continue to represent the House, just not the law firm, who was bullied out of representing the House by gay rights activists.   He resigned from the firm.

Gay rights activists have a First Amendment freedom of speech. I would strongly discourage trying to censor them in the interests of your own political views, that's not consistent with democracy. Spaulding and King as a law firm has the right to decide its own affairs without you deciding for them what they have an obligation to do or not to do--that's how it works in North Korea, not the U.S. Clearly an ideologically-motivated partner went off the reservation and made a decision that was bad for the firm and wasn't thought out. The firm didn't have an obligation to consider your desire, as neither a member of the firm, a client, or John Boehner, to see your opponents crushed under their bootheel.

Did you notice that the contract to represent Boehner in this losing case included a gag order banning all members of this law firm from advocating against DOMA, even in their private time, as private individuals? Do you think it is "gay activist bullying" to oppose that provision and think it was an overreach on the part of your side to impose on a large law firm?
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,932


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #168 on: April 27, 2011, 07:00:26 AM »

If you're going to clutch your pearls and express outrage at brutal and thuggish behavior etc., you have an obligation to back your words up or back off.

Did you read about the gag order that Congress forced on all of the employees of this firm regarding activism about DOMA, including the very many who will have no tie with this case? Do you support that kind of thuggish bullying of free citizens?

If that is the reason the firm dropped the case, then I must say that is entirely despicable and thuggish behavior, that should be unacceptable and it shouldn't be tolerated from any group of activists regardless of what they support.

Not the firm's fault for lacking the cajones to take up a case concerning some great moral issue eh?

I didn't say that. If I was going to say that, I would have, but of course I didn't so don't be ridiculous. Roll Eyes

All the focus is on the bullying...what bullying exactly...the disappointment expressed here should be directed at the firm...which seems to have balked with seemingly little pressure.

Since have I lost to right to focus on what I want to focus on. I really don't give a damn what anyone else has focused on in this thread. An it isn't my responsibility to ensure some kind of balance. If you are so worried about it, then you should bring it up, which you have. Problem solved.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,932


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #169 on: April 27, 2011, 07:04:43 AM »

BTW, before any more strawmen are hurled at me, I do think that DOMA should be defended and as I said in my first post in the revival of this thread I have no doubt there are some clubby old-line conservative law firms staffed with old hacks who are willing to take the case. If I thought that no one would take the case, as might happen with an unpopular defendent like a Gitmo detainee, that would be a real crime. But Paul Clement is still going to represent Cinyc's doomed arguments before the Supreme Court to the best of his ability, he's already landed at a different law firm, and my tax money will be paying him and his buddies huge amounts of money to put on this show and lose with dignity. Why are you complaining, Cinyc? The profits from this case will accrue to a firm that represents your beliefs and can reuse them to fund other causes you support--not King and Spaulding, which doesn't have the right moral agenda to deserve getting taxpayer funding.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #170 on: April 27, 2011, 09:10:29 AM »

Did you notice that the contract to represent Boehner in this losing case included a gag order banning all members of this law firm from advocating against DOMA, even in their private time, as private individuals? Do you think it is "gay activist bullying" to oppose that provision and think it was an overreach on the part of your side to impose on a large law firm?

By definition, if its a voluntary contract, there is no overreach.

I wonder if the gag order still applies, and if so, if they can slam S&K for a breach.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,932


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #171 on: April 27, 2011, 09:36:06 AM »
« Edited: April 27, 2011, 09:44:34 AM by brittain33 »

By definition, if its a voluntary contract, there is no overreach.

Are we debating what is legally permissible or what is overreach in a general sense? Everything we've talked about so far is legally permissible, including S&K's pull-out, but people have gotten upset for other reasons. Ditto the gag order. Various employees of S&K got the gag order through no decision of their own and obviously someone in the firm decided after the fact they shouldn't have agreed to it and added it to everyone's term of employment.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would so love it for Boehner, Gallagher, etc. to bring it on and fight this issue. They won't. Some Pubbies might like to see the Speaker of the House sue a private law firm for not gagging random attorneys who speak out against DOMA, but this isn't 2004, and that kind of random vindictiveness would play very, very poorly among the base Obama needs to come out and swing voters who don't care for that kind of persecution.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,932


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #172 on: April 27, 2011, 09:36:57 AM »


Coca-cola weighed in. But I think you're on to something... they didn't need a boycott to realize this decision by the Bush administration veteran on behalf of the firm was not well thought out and they should revisit it.
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,532
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #173 on: April 27, 2011, 11:15:46 AM »

Damn that powerful Homosexual Lobby!
If only other minorities like Wall Street bankers and Oil & Gas companies had that much influence.
Logged
bullmoose88
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,515


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #174 on: April 27, 2011, 11:17:46 AM »

Damn that powerful Homosexual Lobby!
If only other minorities like Wall Street bankers and Oil & Gas companies had that much influence.

Nobody is as powerful and as stealthy behind...the scenes as the pink mafia.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.058 seconds with 12 queries.