Comments on: DOMA Unconstitutional?

By: Nebraska Stands Down « FIRST ONE @ ONE FIRST

Nebraska Stands Down « FIRST ONE @ ONE FIRST — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 21:55:36 +0000

[...] the next few terms the Court would be facing down an unavoidable phalanx of hot-button issues: gay marriage, health care, affirmative action, illegal immigration, and abortion. Today, however, the phalanx [...]

By: François

François — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 20:23:26 +0000

I’m just really curious to see read what Scalia will say about this case – hoping it will reach SCOTUS. Unless he re-asserts the right of States or the US Congress to morally disapprove of homosexuality (which he does, see his famous dissent in Lawrence), and thus refuses to recognize that Romer and Lawrence control, what possible “rational purpose” will he find that has not been neatly debunked by Judge Tauro ?

By: Marriage, Not Gay Marriage – says Judge Walker « FIRST ONE @ ONE FIRST

Thu, 05 Aug 2010 02:47:08 +0000

[...] not Walker’s framing survives the Ninth Circuit’s go-round. And as I wrote after the Massachusetts DOMA cases: The question now, however, is whether Justice Kennedy, the author of both Romer and Lawrence and [...]

By: Friday round-up | theConstitutional.org

Friday round-up | theConstitutional.org — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 16:28:04 +0000

[...] First One @ One First, Mike Sacks reports on yesterday’s district court ruling that the federal Defense of Marriage Act [...]

By: SCOTUSblog » Friday round-up

SCOTUSblog » Friday round-up — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 14:13:04 +0000

[...] First One @ One First, Mike Sacks reports on yesterday’s district court ruling that the federal Defense of Marriage Act [...]

By: Joe

Joe — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 05:26:17 +0000

Though the equal protection thread of these cases seem to have no logical stopping point until same sex marriage is allowed, the Tenth Amendment thread is very interesting. Kennedy might just see this as a middle path, a way for states to experiment with same sex marriage without losing federal benefits along the way.

The cost to MA in health funds or providing veteran burial benefits is a telling issue on just what Sec. 3 of DOMA has wrought. This isn’t about forcing same sex marriage on states. It is forcing federal policy on states that might legislatively support same sex marriage. Interracial marriage didn’t get this treatment. Jack Balkin at his blog thinks in slippery slopes, but that is not the only way to look at it, imho.