The Gay Thread

[Alex]

And it should be noted that neither ruling struck down the "Full Faith & Credit" exemption part of DOMA. So even if these stand there's still no obligation for Oklahoma to recognize Massachusetts' marriages.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by Alex

And it should be noted that neither ruling struck down the "Full Faith & Credit" exemption part of DOMA. So even if these stand there's still no obligation for Oklahoma to recognize Massachusetts' marriages.

That's because it wasn't part of the original complaint. If challenged in court, there is no way it can stand.

[Chernabog]

Originally Posted by Alex

And it should be noted that neither ruling struck down the "Full Faith & Credit" exemption part of DOMA. So even if these stand there's still no obligation for Oklahoma to recognize Massachusetts' marriages.

I'm pretty sure that if DOMA is struck down on ANY basis, then the marriages would have to be recognized on full faith & credit (though it may take another lawsuit to hammer the nail into the coffin).

In other words, if DOMA is found unconstitutional, I don't think it's a piecemail sort of thing (like a contract). In most contracts, for instance, there is a clause which states something to the effect that if one of the aforementioned clauses is found unenforceable, illegal or invalid, then the rest of the clauses can still be enforced.

A statute like DOMA on the other hand is either constitutionally valid or it isn't. It isn't going to remain on the books simply because there hasn't been a lawsuit testing its constitutional validity in every situation or under every theory out there.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Chernabog

In other words, if DOMA is found unconstitutional, I don't think it's a piecemail sort of thing (like a contract). In most contracts, for instance, there is a clause which states something to the effect that if one of the aforementioned clauses is found unenforceable, illegal or invalid, then the rest of the clauses can still be enforced.

I would be glad to be wrong but I every analysis I've seen has been clear that these rulings have no impact on the Full Faith and Credit stuff in Part II of the law.

If bills were all or nothing then that would mean if any single part of an omnibus budget or one section of the healthcare reform bill would invalidate the entire thing.

[Chernabog]

Originally Posted by Alex

I would be glad to be wrong but I every analysis I've seen has been clear that these rulings have no impact on the Full Faith and Credit stuff in Part II of the law.

If bills were all or nothing then that would mean if any single part of an omnibus budget or one section of the healthcare reform bill would invalidate the entire thing.

I didn't mean that every bill was an "all or nothing" proposition, and I apologize because the contract example was a really bad analogy in retrospect. What I meant was, if a provision is found unconstitutional for ANY reason, then it is unconstitutional period. It doesn't matter if it's constitutional in certain situations, or if the unconstitutionality in a particular situation wasn't argued in the lawsuit overturning it, etc. I thought someone was arguing that the statute would remain on the books because a mere phrase in the statute had not been challenged, or it hadn't been challenged on a particular basis (namely, full faith and credit).

However, on that note I have to eat some crow here because I violated a principal rule of lawyering in my previous post, namely RTDS, which stands for "Read The Damn Statute!" I had it in my mind that DOMA was codified as one statute but it is not. The full faith and credit part (28 U.S.C. section 1738C) is a completely different code section than what was challenged (1 U.S.C. section 7). It doesn't matter than both were enacted into law under the same bill. What was challenged was not "DOMA" technically but "1 U.S.C. section 7" which would not have an effect on a completely separate statute. So the rulings will have limited effect, in the way DOMA was codified, how it is set up, etc. -- the "parts" are not interdependent as I assumed they were. The rulings themselves speak in terms of DOMA part 3. However, it always boils down to RTDS, which I should have done in the first place.

Hey, we can always move to Canada, Sweden, Norway, Holland, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Iceland, or South Africa to get married. They are all lovely places, you know, and marriage is much less confusing there.

I hope that makes more sense.