5 The First Circuit has suggested in dicta that
6 recognition of a new suspect classification in this context
7 would “imply[] an overruling of Baker.” See Massachusetts,
8 682 F.3d at 9. We disagree for two reasons that the First
9 Circuit did not discuss. First, when it comes to marriage,
10 legitimate regulatory interests of a state differ from those
11 of the federal government. Regulation of marriage is “an
12 area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive
13 province of the States.” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393, 404
14 (1975). It has for very long been settled that “[t]he
15 State . . . has [the] absolute right to prescribe the
16 conditions upon which the marriage relation between its own
17 citizens shall be created, and the causes for which it may
18 be dissolved.” Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 734-35
19 (187, overruled on other grounds by Shaffer v. Heitner,
20 433 U.S. 186 (1977). Therefore, our heightened scrutiny
21 analysis of DOMA’s marital classification under federal law
22 is distinct from the analysis necessary to determine whether
23 the marital classification of a state would survive such
24 scrutiny.20
1 Second, the Supreme Court’s decision to apply rational
2 basis review in Romer does not imply to us a refusal to
3 recognize homosexuals as a quasi-suspect class. See
4 Massachusetts, 682 F.3d at 9. The litigants in Romer had
5 abandoned their quasi-suspect argument after the trial court
6 decision. See Romer, 517 U.S. at 640 n.1 (Scalia, J.,
7 dissenting). We are satisfied, for these reasons, that
8 Baker has no bearing on this case.
So again, the decision as a whole was essentially federalist, not a ruling that states must allow gay marriage.
6 recognition of a new suspect classification in this context
7 would “imply[] an overruling of Baker.” See Massachusetts,
8 682 F.3d at 9. We disagree for two reasons that the First
9 Circuit did not discuss. First, when it comes to marriage,
10 legitimate regulatory interests of a state differ from those
11 of the federal government. Regulation of marriage is “an
12 area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive
13 province of the States.” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393, 404
14 (1975). It has for very long been settled that “[t]he
15 State . . . has [the] absolute right to prescribe the
16 conditions upon which the marriage relation between its own
17 citizens shall be created, and the causes for which it may
18 be dissolved.” Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 734-35
19 (187, overruled on other grounds by Shaffer v. Heitner,
20 433 U.S. 186 (1977). Therefore, our heightened scrutiny
21 analysis of DOMA’s marital classification under federal law
22 is distinct from the analysis necessary to determine whether
23 the marital classification of a state would survive such
24 scrutiny.20
1 Second, the Supreme Court’s decision to apply rational
2 basis review in Romer does not imply to us a refusal to
3 recognize homosexuals as a quasi-suspect class. See
4 Massachusetts, 682 F.3d at 9. The litigants in Romer had
5 abandoned their quasi-suspect argument after the trial court
6 decision. See Romer, 517 U.S. at 640 n.1 (Scalia, J.,
7 dissenting). We are satisfied, for these reasons, that
8 Baker has no bearing on this case.
So again, the decision as a whole was essentially federalist, not a ruling that states must allow gay marriage.
||||||||||*MySmiley*
Only so evil.
Only so evil.
This message last edited by Burr on 18/10/2012 at 08:57:19 PM
2nd Circuit rules in favor of Edith Windsor. DOMA unconstitutional.
18/10/2012 08:37:12 PM
- 902 Views
Oh, and they addressed the First Circuit's argument:
18/10/2012 08:54:47 PM
- 711 Views
Completely unsurprising since the Justice department refuses to defend the law.
18/10/2012 09:05:16 PM
- 522 Views
For a moment there I thought you were saying the Supreme Court had ruled it unconstitutional.
18/10/2012 09:10:16 PM
- 570 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
- 632 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
- 647 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
- 228 Views
I wonder about that one as well.
19/10/2012 12:39:54 AM
- 583 Views
Re: I wonder about that one as well.
19/10/2012 01:18:22 AM
- 581 Views
Either a ban discriminates against those affected more than those unaffected, or it does not.
19/10/2012 03:48:32 PM
- 469 Views
Gun control laws can equally affect everyone, though, is my point.
20/10/2012 10:52:41 PM
- 576 Views
I'm sure there is. The California case is likely to discuss it.
19/10/2012 02:48:02 PM
- 627 Views
I just have to note in passing that Ted Olsons memoires will make fascinating reading.
19/10/2012 04:44:15 PM
- 666 Views
Also, hooray! Let's hope SCOTUS adheres (if you use that term over there). *NM*
18/10/2012 10:59:14 PM
- 251 Views
As it should be; the DoMA was always a brazen affront to the Equal Protection Clause
19/10/2012 12:06:13 AM
- 713 Views
Not really
19/10/2012 02:16:04 PM
- 637 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
- 548 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
- 257 Views
How about I "marry" a corporation then. THAT is how stupid the entire arguement is. *NM*
19/10/2012 07:25:13 PM
- 248 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
- 621 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
- 626 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
- 532 Views
Wrong. I do not have an emotional stake in this, I am simply using logic. *NM*
22/10/2012 03:59:08 PM
- 262 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
- 243 Views
EXACTLY, and that was the point I was making. Congratualtions for figuring that out. *NM*
22/10/2012 11:34:46 PM
- 230 Views
you are obviously using some humpty dumpty definition of "logic" then *NM*
22/10/2012 11:40:12 PM
- 243 Views
No, you apparently failed reading comprehension in school.
23/10/2012 03:08:44 PM
- 552 Views
#1: fuck you. #2: you are still not using logic
23/10/2012 05:50:14 PM
- 513 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
- 589 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
- 671 Views
Another good example of how corporations aren't the same as people. *NM*
19/10/2012 10:07:32 PM
- 252 Views
Would you be the bride? Would you wear white?
20/10/2012 07:58:52 PM
- 505 Views
You have obviously not read my posts very carefully
22/10/2012 04:23:22 PM
- 481 Views
Ah, the "I have Gay Friends" argument.
22/10/2012 09:33:41 PM
- 502 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
- 651 Views
It was only a matter of time.
19/10/2012 02:49:21 PM
- 557 Views
I do not understand why fundamentalists demand government dictate religion.
19/10/2012 03:22:54 PM
- 715 Views
Which is why the entire method of legal attack being mounted is dumb.
19/10/2012 05:53:12 PM
- 626 Views
the only ones forcing their beliefs down everyone's throats are people like yourself
19/10/2012 06:44:57 PM
- 596 Views
There is no right being denied...
19/10/2012 07:22:24 PM
- 559 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
- 619 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
- 684 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
- 512 Views
There are no "marriage rights" NONE, zip, ziltch, nada...
22/10/2012 04:18:15 PM
- 570 Views
why bother settling custody in a divorce then if there are no "marriage rights"?
22/10/2012 06:38:14 PM
- 462 Views
You are making one, huge factual mistake that is screwing up your entire argument:
20/10/2012 11:00:28 PM
- 581 Views