13 June 2009 @ 06:51 pm
My thoughts on the DOJs brief.  
Basically, at issue in this case, is whether or not a couple, legally married in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage (god I'm so sick of having to use qualifiers and such for this topic) is constitutionally entitled to have their marriage recognized by other States, that do not support same-sex marriage and whether they are entitled to Federal Benefits.

First of all, I have a problem with a brief that is supposed to defend an act of Congress stating the following: other states have reaffirmed the traditional understanding of marriage as the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, see VARNUM 763 N.W. 2d, 878 - an understanding held as a matter of profound moral and religious conviction by many of their citizens. KEEP YOUR FUCKING RELIGION OUT OF OUR COURTS. Calms down and puts back on lawyer hat. This type of statement has no business in this brief.

While I abhor DOMA with every fiber of my being, all I'm doing here is reading the DOJ's brief and putting my spin on things like so many others already have, and I have to say that the standing arguments that were presented in the brief are sound. It kills me but I think that until marriage (ALL MARRIAGE, WHETHER BETWEEN, MAN/WOMAN, SAME-SEX, ALL COLORS/RELIGIONS/ETHNICITY/ETC) is found to be a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, all these types of cases are destined for failure. It's what I've been saying all along. sighs. I also think there were jurisdictional issues, both subject matter and venue, but those can get complex so let's leave it at that.

By restricting marriage this way, it allows Congress to use it's powers under the Full, Faith & Credit Clause of the Constitution to leave things up to the states. Yes, this is the same clause that would be used to enforce all states to recognize same-sex marriages, if it were found to be a fundamental right. You see, marriage shouldn't be about "public policy" - it's a RIGHT that should be bestowed on every citizen of this country. Are there public policy reasons to restrict marriage? Of course, the age of the participants comes to mind immediately as does incestuous relationships - but these are policies that can be applied to everyone, regardless of their sexuality, without using them to infringe on anyone's right to marry.

I understand that race is a protected class and thus all laws based on race are subject to strict scrutiny by the courts. I also know that sexuality is not a protected class and that race is and that applying strict scrutiny in LOVING V. VA was what won that case. However, I cannot, in my mind, figure out how DOMA meets the rational basis test. What is the rational relation? What is the legitimate state interest? Is it seriously to protect religious beliefs because that's bullshit (yes, I'm digressing a bit...bite me). I just don't understand how people cannot see that this is the same thing. This is where ignorance and hate come into play.

So basically what it boils down to is that while the Supreme Court has determined that one has a fundamental right to marry, it's limited to the those who meet the definition under DOMA, unless you belong to a protected class. Know what I say: grow up people, it's coming whether you like it or not. You same people didn't want the Lovings to marry, well, you lost that one too and eventually you'll lose this one because you're wrong. Someone shouldn't have to be a member of a protected class to have their government recognize them equally.

Finally, I'll say this, I don't practice this type of Constitutional Law everyday and I understand these are complicated issues with lots of history. However, I also know what this Country stands for and it's not the kind of crap that was stated in this brief. It's time for our President, my President, to stand firm on something. Sure he has to allow the DOJ to defend congressional laws, but HE doesn't have to like it and he's still in charge, so the brief didn't have to ramble on as it did, IMO. If you're listening Mr. President, please, stop trying to appease everyone, it's time to stop hoping and start doing!
 
 
Current Mood: contemplative
 
 
( Post a new comment )
Christy[info]fun_demented on June 13th, 2009 06:09 pm (UTC)
This is a really great post. It makes me just want to delete mine. I can't decide on that.

(Reply) (Thread) (Link)
happier_bunny: rainbow sunflower[info]happier_bunny on June 13th, 2009 06:14 pm (UTC)
Thanks.

Why would you delete yours? You're entitled to write whatever you like in your journal - I'd fight for that right for you. ;)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
Christy[info]fun_demented on June 13th, 2009 06:28 pm (UTC)
♥ ♥

(Reply) (Parent) (Link)
firehead[info]firehead30 on June 13th, 2009 06:29 pm (UTC)
Thank you for this.
(Reply) (Thread) (Link)
happier_bunny: rainbow[info]happier_bunny on June 13th, 2009 06:35 pm (UTC)
You're welcome. I hope it helped a bit. I tried to streamline the arguments but sometimes I get ahead of myself because I get emotional or because I forget that I'm not talking to myself. LOL
(Reply) (Parent) (Link)
vlredreign[info]vl_redreign on June 13th, 2009 07:20 pm (UTC)
Okay, so what I was reading between the lines is kinda right. In that by a purely legal standpoint, the argument in the brief holds up.

The part that rankles is throwing in the church part. That has GOT to be exised from any subsequent filings, briefings, whatever. Whether or not the church agrees is not the point, and never was. Legally, it says that gays are not a protected class, and, as such, have no rights in this matter.

Did I get that right?

Still, thanks for reading it and explaining it. Will you cross-post this to forwardthinking? I think that even though there are personal thoughts in it (and really, how can there not be?), the legal breakdown is important for people to see. Up to you, of course.

(Reply) (Thread) (Link)
happier_bunny: rainbow pride flag[info]happier_bunny on June 13th, 2009 07:32 pm (UTC)
Red, I'm in the middle of something with my sister, you can link to forwardthinking if you want to or I can do it later and I'll respond to the rest of your comment then too. :D
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
vlredreign[info]vl_redreign on June 13th, 2009 08:05 pm (UTC)
I posted the link over there.
(Reply) (Parent) (Link)
xie_xie_xie[info]xie_xie_xie on June 13th, 2009 07:48 pm (UTC)
I understand bunny to be saying that the argument in the beginning of the brief holds up, but not all of it.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
vlredreign[info]vl_redreign on June 13th, 2009 08:06 pm (UTC)
Right. That's what I meant.
(Reply) (Parent) (Link)
happier_bunny: barrister bunny[info]happier_bunny on June 14th, 2009 03:06 pm (UTC)
Well, I don't want to say that the entire argument stands muster. The parts that are a hands down problem for this case only (as I see it) are the issues regarding standing and jurisdiction.

And while, yes, they have to respond to the other arguments made in a complaint, my belief is their analysis is faulty. You cannot have a fundamental right that is applied to people differently, I don't care if the people belong to a suspect class or not.

See, what this brief is saying is that it's ok, to put restrictions on a fundamental right that supports a states public policy and then it cites examples such as not allowing incestuous relationships or not states not recognized a marriage of someone under 16 (i tink that was the age). What they're fucking missing is that those laws can and should also be applied to same-sex marriages. I don't want my 2 gay cousins getting married anymore than I do my 2 straight ones nor do I think it's against one's fundamental right to marry to limit that wiht respect to age. We do those kinds of things all the time...limit laws pursuant to age. It's these arguments that have the gay community so upset and rightly so. It's a comparison of apples and oranges instead of apples and apples like they did in the LOVING analysis and it's only because race is a suspect class.

whew. does that help? The Due Process Clause is a very complicated legal issue and while I tried to boil it down, maybe I didn't do a good job.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
vlredreign[info]vl_redreign on June 14th, 2009 03:28 pm (UTC)
It helps a lot.

I do have a question. A large part of the outrage, from what I've seen, is the comparisons of incestual and/or underage marriages being legal or illegal, depending on the state. My understanding of that is that there wasn't any other precedents to compare the case to. Is that correct?

Everything else you wrote, I get it. ;-)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
happier_bunny: rainbow we the people[info]happier_bunny on June 14th, 2009 04:08 pm (UTC)
Hee, well, I won't pretend to know all the caselaw that exists in this country. I'd like to, but I won't. LOL

When you say there weren't any other precedents are you talking those rulings regarding the public policy restrictions on marriage that were quoted in the brief (ie. the incestuous ones/underage one)? And when you say to compare the case to do you mean the case that was filed that they are responding to?

See, here's the thing, what the DOJ filed was a MOTION to DISMISS and they had plenty to go on with the issues of standing and jurisdiction. Those are strong and winnable arguments IMO.

Why they went on from there and got into the actual complaint, I don't know (I don't practice much civil law, let alone federal law, but it doesn't make sense to me). It's like they were tossing in everything they could think of and it's weird.

However, back to your question: those comparisons were made in the argument about the Full Faith & Credit Clause because there's a section in that clause that provides exceptions based on a state's legitimate public policy. I do not for one second believe that there does not exist less offensive examples in precedent than the ones used. I don't personally know of any and while these seem on point in a limited factual sense. People should remember to check ZABLOCKI V. REDHAIL 434 US 374 (1978) which held that Wisconsin couldn't prohibit marriage for anyone not in compliance with valid court-ordered child support...it goes on from there to discuss different levels of scrutiny and whether this is a substantive due process argument or an equal protection argument and what level of scrunity applies and how to define it. To me, this is the type of case our side should be using to make their case but again, I don't practice this type of law eveyrday and besides maybe they are.

I'm concerned that I've mucked this up for people more than I've helped.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
vlredreign[info]vl_redreign on June 14th, 2009 04:19 pm (UTC)
No, you answered exactly what I asked. And the link I'm reading at Pam's House Blend is explaining it as well.

I was just wondering if they had to cite other cases in the brief, but I see that they didn't. Non-lawyer here, so I'm not versed in how a brief is written or what they have to put in them.

I'm good now. Thanks, Bunny, this really helps me.
(Reply) (Parent) (Link)
notreallyme10[info]notreallyme10 on June 13th, 2009 07:25 pm (UTC)
Thanks for posting this... I can't say it is all sinking in right now, but I plan to come back later when I have more time and a clear mind to read it again.
(Reply) (Thread) (Link)
happier_bunny: brian 302 profile deal's deal[info]happier_bunny on June 14th, 2009 03:08 pm (UTC)
You're welcome. I hope I didn't further complicate things for people. Maybe this comment to Red will also help: http://happier-bunny.insanejournal.com/348963.html?thread=3328291#t3328291
(Reply) (Parent) (Link)
tootiredtosleep: Neck Squeeze[info]tootiredtosleep on June 13th, 2009 09:11 pm (UTC)
Thank you so much for breaking this down. I really appreciate it; been feeling just sick about this. I have lost respect for Obama over DADT and now this idiocy.
(Reply) (Thread) (Link)
happier_bunny: bunny others[info]happier_bunny on June 14th, 2009 03:12 pm (UTC)
You're welcome. I'm not at the point where I've lost respect for him. His hands are full, I get that and it's really only been 6 months. However, his response to this is disappointing and he has to fix it somehow, otherwise, he will lose my faith in many ways. :(
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
tootiredtosleep[info]tootiredtosleep on June 14th, 2009 04:01 pm (UTC)
DATA makes me ill. He is the Commander-in-Chief. He could get his head out of his ass and issue a stay in the firings. I have considered that he wants the military and Congress to reach concensus and change the law, but sometimes reform needs a kick in the ass. I want to believe he is serious when he says he is an advocate for the LGBT community, but so far his actions are falling very short of the mark.
(Reply) (Parent) (Link)
Classified[info]alafaye on June 15th, 2009 06:03 pm (UTC)
Outside of religion, there is nothing wrong with being a homosexual and therefore nothing wrong with same sex marriage. And if this country isn't a country ruled by religion, there should be no way for the government--either the federal or state or local--to say who can marry who.

Get religion out of my government.

...sorry...got carried away a bit...
(Reply) (Link)