Mass. v DOMA
‘The genius of this complaint is that it takes a conservative argument and turns it around’
SOUNDBITES — “The genius of this complaint is that it takes a conservative argument – that liberal states should not be permitted to impose their tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality on the rest of the country – and turns it around to benefit a state that really pioneered gay rights in the U.S. Even a conservative justice would support the notion that federal encroachment over those few areas where states have sovereign jurisdiction is unconstitutional. In this case, that principle supports, at the very least, limiting the application of DOMA when it affects state programs with federal funding.” —Civil litigator Emma Ruby-Sachs on Massachusetts’ challenge to DOMA
This is also the flaw of the argument because the Court could contort the intention in such away as to limit any attempts to overturn marriage bans at the state level.
I think it’s a great idea to use the conservatives arguments against them. They have been the ones for states rights, now that some states have marriage equality are they going to argue against states rights? Another good idea is to have accepting religions sue on the grounds of freedom of religion. Let’s see them argue against freedom of religion. That should be interesting.
@The Gay Numbers: Not really seeing how you arrived at that as a possibility. I mean I can see maybe Scalia or Roberts trying to pull something like that but I don’t see Kennedy or any of the more liberal justices supporting such a contortion.
Every dog has its day!
@petted: this is an activist conservative court. Kennedy has bought into a lot of their sheenigans. I am not convinced he is as liberal as you think.