ok, that's the one I found too. I'm on page 38 and find no reference to anything like comparing gays to child rapists. I see a lot of "you guys didn't read the rules of the game or follow the order of operations required to win this case". A lot. Which is exactly what I saw in the result of the Prop 8 scenario. Law is not about "right and wrong", it's about "who's following the rules". As soon as the gay rights side can figure out the rules enough to put together a case with actual "damage" and proper procedure, we might have a fighting chance. So far, the "traditional marriage" advocates have been winning because they know enough to get certain things in place before there's anything higher up to contradict them (like DOMA and Prop 8), while all of the gay rights actions have been reactionary, and without actual "damages" as defined by the laws already in place.
I wouldn't be surprised if Obama was actually working on making sure any legislation sent to Congress was WAY more bullet proof than this brief makes the current case look.
I'm REALLY torn... part of me keeps thinking- ya know if he moves TOO quick, they'll not just shoot it down, they'll impeach him and reverse /everything/ he does...
...but then part of me is just so SAD about the whole state of affairs... I don't get it. I really don't. Why am I so worthy of hatred, so worthy of being separated out from the herd, denied things... it's just SAD. It's heartbreaking.
If I was a woman, I'd be considered perfect. *groan*
I don't get it. I really don't. Why am I so worthy of hatred, so worthy of being separated out from the herd, denied things... it's just SAD. It's heartbreaking. Right there with you. I don't get it either. It doesn't make sense to me. But like you say, moving too fast will just get a knee-jerk reaction that will set all of our progress back... and so we push slow but steady and try to be patient. It's brutally painful.
I think the case number issue has to do with the federal government twice changing the venue of the proceedings (which changes docket numbers etc.) but I'm not sure. Additionally (at least from reading all the marriage equality cases in CA and several from other states), the first line of "defense" is "You don't have the right to sue" I asked a lawyer who goes to my church, and apparently that is standard Defense especially when defendant is the government.
I agree that they should have found a CA married couple who lives in a non-recognizing state, sue said state under the 14th amendment and full faith and credit, have the state say "DOMA" and then yank it into a federal case..... but I ain't a lawyer.
(and oddly enough part of me feels that States shouldn't have to issue marriage licenses to couples they object to. ... but I feel a couple with a valid marriage license should have it honored anywhere in the country, but the argument goes that a policy like that hurts poor people who can't afford to travel). I'd just love to see the state that argues that thanks to DOMA they don't have to recognize *any* out of state marriages. Think what that could do to the economy of a state requiring everyone who enters who want to be married in the state to buy a new marriage license.
The "Obama" brief (people attributing it directly to him drives me BONKERS seeing as how he didn't write it and hie name's nowhere on it) is for aa case claiming that DOMA should be struck down. Sucha brief is a requirement of the DOJ for any case where the federal gov is a defendant - not submitting one would be a bigger gaffe for "Obama" than the submitted brief is. It says nothing derogatory about the LGBT community, simply that under the rules of the land, the suit is unwinnable and shouldn't even be heard (like you said, the typical first line of defense).
The Brown brief is for a case claiming that Prop 8 violates the federal constitution and should therefore be disallowed/struck down. Brown reiterates a longstanding support of the view that it violates the 14th amendment.
I'm still not seeing what so many call specious arguments and inflammatory language. The way the brief presented the cases about the uncle/niece pairing from Italy and the underage female whose marriage was annulled in NJ are perfectly logical examples of "what we do about marriages that aren't recognized from one location to the next" and presented with no value judgment that I could see. Of course, much of that depends on the filter you're wearing when you start to read, and I've been trained to read law for my environmental work in a very detached, logical, rules oriented way. I just don't see the snub so many are seeing.
That said, I think we all agree we wish we were seeing new legislation on the floor of Congress...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2009-06-13 07:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-13 10:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-13 11:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-13 11:31 pm (UTC)http://www.scribd.com/doc/16355867/Obamas-Motion-to-Dismiss-Marriage-case
no subject
Date: 2009-06-13 11:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-13 11:45 pm (UTC)Oh, and I'm sorry I inadvertently hijacked your post
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16378481/Brown-Answer-in-Perry
no subject
Date: 2009-06-13 11:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-14 01:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-14 12:31 am (UTC)I wouldn't be surprised if Obama was actually working on making sure any legislation sent to Congress was WAY more bullet proof than this brief makes the current case look.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-14 02:37 am (UTC)...but then part of me is just so SAD about the whole state of affairs... I don't get it. I really don't. Why am I so worthy of hatred, so worthy of being separated out from the herd, denied things... it's just SAD. It's heartbreaking.
If I was a woman, I'd be considered perfect. *groan*
no subject
Date: 2009-06-14 02:48 am (UTC)Right there with you. I don't get it either. It doesn't make sense to me. But like you say, moving too fast will just get a knee-jerk reaction that will set all of our progress back... and so we push slow but steady and try to be patient. It's brutally painful.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-14 02:26 pm (UTC)I agree that they should have found a CA married couple who lives in a non-recognizing state, sue said state under the 14th amendment and full faith and credit, have the state say "DOMA" and then yank it into a federal case..... but I ain't a lawyer.
(and oddly enough part of me feels that States shouldn't have to issue marriage licenses to couples they object to. ... but I feel a couple with a valid marriage license should have it honored anywhere in the country, but the argument goes that a policy like that hurts poor people who can't afford to travel). I'd just love to see the state that argues that thanks to DOMA they don't have to recognize *any* out of state marriages. Think what that could do to the economy of a state requiring everyone who enters who want to be married in the state to buy a new marriage license.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-14 02:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-14 03:03 pm (UTC)The "Obama" brief (people attributing it directly to him drives me BONKERS seeing as how he didn't write it and hie name's nowhere on it) is for aa case claiming that DOMA should be struck down. Sucha brief is a requirement of the DOJ for any case where the federal gov is a defendant - not submitting one would be a bigger gaffe for "Obama" than the submitted brief is. It says nothing derogatory about the LGBT community, simply that under the rules of the land, the suit is unwinnable and shouldn't even be heard (like you said, the typical first line of defense).
The Brown brief is for a case claiming that Prop 8 violates the federal constitution and should therefore be disallowed/struck down. Brown reiterates a longstanding support of the view that it violates the 14th amendment.
FYI
Date: 2009-06-16 08:52 pm (UTC)Re: FYI
Date: 2009-06-16 10:02 pm (UTC)That said, I think we all agree we wish we were seeing new legislation on the floor of Congress...
no subject
Date: 2009-06-14 01:44 am (UTC)