Archive for DOMA

Civil Unions Coming to Hawaii?

In 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court seemed on the verge of bringing marriage equality to the state. In Baehr v. Lewin, the court held that the ban on gay marriages was a form of sex discrimination, and that the state therefore bore a heavy burden of justification. The case was sent back to the lower [...]

Posted by: John Culhane on Monday, January 25th, 2010

2009: A Year of Blogging Obsessively (300 Posts and Counting)

Well, I have a few minutes before family and friends return to sweep me away in a haze of New Year’s Eve partying. (Of course, with young children “a haze of partying” ends well before midnight. We can do a faux countdown with them.)
To all of the readers — regular and occasional — who have [...]

Posted by: John Culhane on Thursday, December 31st, 2009

The Mighty Kozinski?

In a battle that only lawyers and marriage debate partisans (like me) could love, federal appellate court judge Alex Kozinski has been sparring with the Obama DOJ over whether the government must (or even can) provide federal benefits to the same-sex partner of a staff attorney for the 9th Circuit (Kozinski’s court). You can find [...]

Posted by: John Culhane on Sunday, December 27th, 2009

Death, Taxes, and Gay Couples

This Huffington Post entry by Michael Steinberger makes a point that’s hard to argue with from a formal fairness perspective. Steinberger and co-author Naomi Goldberg note that current efforts to fix the estate tax — now slated for a one-year repeal, followed by rebirth at a higher rate — don’t do anything to equalize same- [...]

Posted by: John Culhane on Sunday, December 6th, 2009

On and On and On….

Here’s a story you likely know, at least in broad outline:
During his campaign, Obama promises progress on gay rights. Once in office, his rhetoric cools and — to be charitable — he doesn’t seem to be moving very fast. Then he makes things much worse with a dreadful brief his Justice Department files in defending [...]

Posted by: John Culhane on Monday, October 12th, 2009

“‘Till Death (or a Change in the Law) Do Us Part”

Gay couples, consider this before marrying: You might not be able to get out of it, if your marriage doesn’t result in the eternal bliss (or at least the workable series of compromises) you were hoping for.
Tara Ranzy and Larissa Chism recently made news when an Indiana court quite properly refused to grant them a [...]

Posted by: John Culhane on Tuesday, September 29th, 2009

A Few Late-Night Thoughts On DOJ’s Motion to Dismiss in Gill

Gill v. Office of Personnel Management is a challenge to only Section 3 of DOMA, the section that restricts federal benefits to opposite-sex couples, even if a same-sex couple’s marriage is recognized in their state of residence. DOJ filed its motion to dismiss the brief today, and it’s a far cry from the over-the-top brief [...]

Posted by: John Culhane on Saturday, September 19th, 2009

Barney Frank, Re-Reconsidered?

Quite understandably, Barney Frank has his defenders — even when he takes an action that, at least on the face of it, seems inexplicable to the gay community of which he’s such a vital part.
So I wasn’t surprised when Chris Geidner (Law Dork) stood with Frank when he decided not to support NY Rep Jerrold [...]

Posted by: John Culhane on Friday, September 18th, 2009

Barney Frank, Reconsidered

There’s much to admire about Barney Frank. He’s brainy, has a lacerating wit that he’s willing to use in calling out idiots, and straightforwardly principled on a number of issues. I particularly admire (if I don’t fully share) his purist view of the First Amendment. He was one of  only three House members to oppose [...]

Posted by: John Culhane on Wednesday, September 16th, 2009

Dale Carpenter’s Take on the Massachusetts DOMA Suit (and a Response)

Dale Carpenter doesn’t find the same federalism problems with DOMA that I did. He starts by agreeing with much of what I said, especially about the “neutrality” canard:
“[T]he Massachusetts lawsuit convincingly sketches several ways that Section 3 enlarges federal authority and undermines state authority in an area of traditional state control…. Section 3 is a [...]

Posted by: John Culhane on Saturday, July 11th, 2009