Comments on: BREAKING: Second Circuit rules Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional in Windsor v. USA

By: Prop 8 Trial Tracker » Justice Department replies to remaining briefs in DOMA challenges awaiting Supreme Court conference

Tue, 18 Dec 2012 21:40:08 +0000

[...] that the Justice Department had noted in a reply brief that it would soon take further action after the Second Circuit held Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional in the case. Their initial petition for certiorari was filed before judgment at the court of [...]

By: Prop 8 Trial Tracker » Marriage equality: is it a federal issue or a state issue?

Fri, 14 Dec 2012 05:01:21 +0000

[...] been ruled unconstitutional by several district courts and two circuit courts, most recently the Second Circuit, based in New York. Four different DOMA cases have been petitioned to the Supreme Court, which is [...]

By: Prop 8 Trial Tracker » Setting the record straight regarding President Obama’s MTV interview on marriage equality

Fri, 14 Dec 2012 02:41:02 +0000

[...] members), wrote the majority opinion in a case called Windsor v. USA ruling that DOMA is unconstitutional on precisely the heightened scrutiny grounds outlined by the Obama administration. That opinion [...]

By: Prop 8 Trial Tracker » Where things stand with Prop 8 and DOMA at the Supreme Court

Fri, 14 Dec 2012 02:40:26 +0000

[...] it reached them through petitions for certiorari before judgment at the appeals court, and there is now a judgment at the appeals court (along with promises by the Justice Department and the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) to [...]

By: Prop 8 Trial Tracker » Updates on two pending challenges to Section 3 of DOMA within the Second Circuit

Fri, 14 Dec 2012 02:39:46 +0000

[...] week, Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act was struck down under equal protection principles in Windsor v. USA. Notably, all of the states under the Second Circuit’s jurisdiction have legalized same-sex [...]

By: Prop 8 Trial Tracker » BLAG files new brief with Supreme Court in light of Windsor DOMA ruling

Fri, 02 Nov 2012 15:02:33 +0000

[...] high court to take up. BLAG’s new filing comes in the wake of the Second Circuit’s decision in October striking down DOMA as unconstitutional under the heightened scrutiny standard of review [...]

By: Prop 8 Trial Tracker » Responses to remaining DOMA petitions contain note from DOJ suggesting it will take further action in light of Second Circuit decision in Windsor

Tue, 23 Oct 2012 19:07:31 +0000

[...] last week’s Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Windsor v. USA, Edith Windsor’s legal challenge to the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of [...]

By: Mike in Baltimore

Mike in Baltimore — Mon, 22 Oct 2012 23:04:39 +0000

According to a paper written by Scott Titshaw titled 'The meaning of marriage: Immigration rules and their implications for same-sex spouses in a world without DOMA' (date of publication unknown, but it could be from 2010) (http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1048&context=wmjowl):

"With the exception of a provision excluding unconsummated
proxy marriages, the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)
does not define the words 'marriage' and 'spouse.' ”

Which goes back to my original question: "Are there other Federal laws the Federal government can cite [if all or part of DOMA is declared unConstitutional]?"

By: Mike in Baltimore

Mike in Baltimore — Mon, 22 Oct 2012 22:36:48 +0000

My ORIGINAL post, from October 19, was to Kathleen?

No, it was to the post immediately above it, the post written by Robert West, and then Kathleen posted to my post. My SECOND post on this thread was directed at Kathleen in an attempt to clarify some points, and to tell Kathleen to not ASSume.

As to Kathleen's post, I would expect attorneys (and/or adults) to pay attention to the details, not ASSume things. If some detail is not clear (such as link and 'live link'), then ask questions, don't ASSume.

By: davep

davep — Sun, 21 Oct 2012 20:48:14 +0000

That is quite a stretch to conclude that that remark has any bearing on whether federal laws should be allowed to deny equal benefits to legally married same sex couples. It requires some very elastic "logic".