Active Users:1157 Time:23/11/2024 04:22:48 AM
Oh, and they addressed the First Circuit's argument: Burr Send a noteboard - 18/10/2012 08:54:47 PM
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 (1878), 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.
This message last edited by Burr on 18/10/2012 at 08:57:19 PM
Reply to message
2nd Circuit rules in favor of Edith Windsor. DOMA unconstitutional. - 18/10/2012 08:37:12 PM 902 Views
An excellent ruling. Thanks for the post. *NM* - 18/10/2012 08:47:54 PM 256 Views
Oh, and they addressed the First Circuit's argument: - 18/10/2012 08:54:47 PM 711 Views
I always knew that DomA guy was bad news. - 18/10/2012 09:05:13 PM 467 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
Not quite - 19/10/2012 02:56:56 PM 504 Views
Yes, really, for "any CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT." - 19/10/2012 03:12:11 PM 609 Views
joel, please stop - 19/10/2012 05:42:51 PM 572 Views
That's such a stupid, puerile argument. - 19/10/2012 03:47:26 PM 589 Views
Not the best analogy, though I agree with the sentiment. - 19/10/2012 04:10:11 PM 517 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
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
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
No? - 19/10/2012 11:34:36 PM 537 Views
Really - 22/10/2012 04:29:38 PM 538 Views
You are making one, huge factual mistake that is screwing up your entire argument: - 20/10/2012 11:00:28 PM 581 Views
Nope I am not - 22/10/2012 04:34:59 PM 522 Views
That is just it: Most US marriage laws are already areligious. - 23/10/2012 05:08:38 PM 536 Views
Yes, the laws are 100% secular... - 23/10/2012 07:01:08 PM 505 Views

Reply to Message