Comments on: U.S. Bankruptcy Court Declares DOMA Unconstitutional

By: Ben M

Ben M — Thu, 16 Jun 2011 03:36:44 +0000

CA is a Community property state, which, I assume, would make handling these as separate bankruptcy cases even more complected.

By: Gus

Gus — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 10:54:06 +0000

Mr. Kincaid, you are correct. We have found most judges (even the most conservative ones) and government entities we have dealt with in the last 27 years want the simplest and quickest solution. Ohio’s anti-marriage equality constitutional amendment and DOMA just gummed up the works in many areas. It took us a while to understand the looks and attitudes we would get from government workers to a sitting judge was not discrimination, but more of a “Oh crap, more paperwork with these guys.”

By: Regan DuCasse

Regan DuCasse — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 18:49:48 +0000

I think there are times when most people can be reminded that the war on gay people IS expensive and not worth the energy and expense it’s taken to wage it. Gay people obviously are part of the tax base, who also have to vote on fiscal issues that effect everyone and are essentially law abiding.

That going on the offensive against gay people requires engaging them to the extent of higher visibility and outreach which wouldn’t occur, were gay folks mainstreamed and fully participating in everything other people do legally every day.
The people who donated heavily to support Prop. 8 surely have to ask themselves, while gay people were stopped from marrying, did it do anything to prevent divorces or domestic violence or the economy downturn in their own lives? Anyone’s?

Even while we’re engage in two wars, and need to have soldiers posted in other parts of the world, why were competent and willing gay soldiers discharged?
Which was very costly and posed a security risk?

Perhaps really seeing that it costs more than it’s worth to attack gay people, while at the same time, confront anti gay orgs with whether they are doing anything that truly helps marriage or children or families OTHER than attacking gay people would be the point.
Courts have better things to do too than to try and defend the folly of the anti gay.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 17:35:52 +0000

What we are seeing is a society that is coming to realize the existence of gay people – as such – and recognize our relationships as similar to their own. And once you take that step, then it is actually an annoyance and irritation to treat gay couples differently.

While I’m certain that the judges who signed this order did so out of sincere belief in the Fifth Amendment, I’m also sure that part of their decision was a desire to simplify the process. It’s much less paperwork, fewer hearings, less administration to just treat all married couples the same. And Judge Donovan is a busy man; he doesn’t have time to deal with stupid “are they married or aren’t they” hearings.

By: Bernie

Bernie — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 15:59:59 +0000

Wow! Never saw THAT coming.

I wonder what(I am a Federal Tax Attorney) Michele Bachmann has to say about this?

@Dakotahgeo, thanks for helping me diffuse the illogical arguments on the CP, and RD blogs. I think I still have your email address, if not, here’s mine;btkestrel777@yahoo.com. We should indeed talk…

By: Dakotahgeo

Dakotahgeo — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:46:32 +0000

Weare beginning to see the DOMA gnawed away, legally, piece by piece by piece, until nothing will be left of it to defend. That will be a great day for our justice system. Just a matter of time… thankfully.

By: TampaZeke

TampaZeke — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:51:45 +0000

drip, drip, drip…

By: Stefano A

Stefano A — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 04:28:44 +0000

Interesting, the Metro Weekly article is the second bankruptcy news article to hit today. In another California case, the Sacramento Bee reported on Brenda and Lynda Ziviello-Howell, who married in Sacramento in June 2008, who filed for joint bankruptcy and were denied by the US Trustee, which handles such cases.

Likewise, the bankruptcy court, finding the women were legally married, while declining to address the constitutional issue, overrode the US Trustee and ruled that their bankruptcy could go forward as spouses in a joint bankruptcy.

This couple, represented by Chico attorney Joe Feist, have also filed a lawsuit challenging DOMA.