Is anyone else annoyed by stuff like this

[indigo32]

I read in a local paper that there are some GLBT couples challenging MN DOMA laws under the Fair Faith and Credit act, now that folks are getting married in CA.

So a few weeks later I get an e-mail from Outfront which is as I understand it the our states version of HRC. This is what they headline with....

http://outfront.org/library/marriage.html

a Statement against litigation

:mad: :puke:

I know this shouldn't come as a surprise, and I shouldn't let it piss me off so bad BUT IT DOES.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

1. I know this won't be much comfort to you right now,

but their position might make great legal sense in that The Defense Of Marriage Act pretty much negates any challenges made under the Full Faith and Credit Act. It's a rotten law - thank you, Bill Clinton - but it's still on the books, and before you can begin to challenge anything, you must first take down TDOFMA.

It's nothing but legal procedure, and it's unfortunate that the press release didn't make that clear.

[Ms. Toad]

6. Actually,

There are good solid legal arguments that DOMA is unconstitutional. Both challenges can take place in the same lawsuit.

[Zuiderelle]

2. Yeah, it pisses me off.

[Not Me]

3. After the election DOMA is going to go down

I suspect strongly that the national advocate groups are already planning to file suit. They are just not wanting to tilt sentiment against CA (or the Pres election) right now.

[indigo32]

4. I hope so

I truly hope so

[freestyle]

5. Do you want to trust this Supreme Court to make the decision?

Clearly, the federal DOMA and any state versions violate the U.S. Constitution and international treaties. However, I'm not willing to trust the U.S. Supreme Court as currently configured to be "strict constructionists" on this one. I could see them coming up with some justification for treating marriage differently than any other contract, full faith and credit or not. We will win, state by state, and nationally eventually, but going to the Supreme Court now is asking for a defeat that may take even more decades to overcome.

[Ms. Toad]

7. My personal (legal) beliefs aside,

I agree.

I would never presume to tell anyone else that they should not challenge DOMA (or any state version thereof). We made a decision to test our state's law on same gender adoption without the support of any of the national groups (they didn't say don't - they just decided not to provide assistance at the initial stage). Because of our decision, in a half dozen counties in Ohio same gender couples are prohibited from second parent adoption. We would make that particular decision again. We would also repeat our decision not to push for an Ohio Supreme Court decision which would almost certainly have extended the prohibition statewide.

In the legal system, personal decisions can have much broader consequences than the individuals involved. We weighed the personal need and the public consequences of testing Ohio's adoption laws and the likelihood of success and decided the balance at the trial and initial appellate stage was in favor of testing the law. The balance shifted at the state Supreme Court level, and we decided not to push that appeal to the limit.

We have done the same balancing with our marriage. We deliberately set up our marriage to be in the best position to pursue a challenge (absolutely legal where it was entered into, entered into before Ohio had a DOMA amendment - to put Ohio in the position of taking away existing rights rather than granting ones that did not yet exist which requires the state to bear a greater burden of proving public need). Even so, we are not personally challenging either the state or federal marriage discrimination laws. The likelihood that we would lose at the state level is high, the likelihood that we would lose at the U.S. Supreme Court is similarly high. Although the personal benefit if we won would be enormous, the public consequences to all same gender couples seeking to marry would be far greater if we lost.

So - while I would never presume to tell anyone else not to challenge DOMA - I would encourage anyone considering it to make sure they evaluate all the consequences of a loss.