I really liked her comment about how DOMA sets up "Skim milk" marriages, lacking the full richness, and legal benefit.

And by her I mean Justice Ginsburg

Great rundown!

Professor Landau, I can't resist. Do you know if Martin Landau is gay? Scratch that, I hate that question, tactless, even if it's a celebrity, just junk gossip. Carry on, very nice article you've written. I'll read it after I post this comment. Oh gosh, this sounds so disrespectful to a man of our stature. Fordham eh. You know Alan Alda?

By making the SCOTUS take on DOMA the president very astutely handed off the tar baby to a body that isn't subject to popular backlash. People may rail against them but the high court can take it. Let's face it, asking why the president didn't end DOMA with an executive order is really just a provocation. Had the president done so, every case coming before the courts relating to issues under the act ould be subject to arguments against executive privilege.

#5 and what happens the next time a republiCON is elected president? There goes your executive order. A SCOTUS decision is much more permanent.

I find it delightfully vindictive that Republican ideals are the motivation behind the plaintiffs in the DOMA case, because it was the partner who would have to pay a huge estate tax because of her wife's death since the state government did not recognize her marriage. This is especially delicious given all the estate tax lovers, like Goldy, who regularly bash estate tax reformers.

Have y'all marriage= folk prepared yourself mentally for the worst, should the SCOTUS find in favor of DOMA? It is possible you know.

Are we gonna have a run on the banks, will you stop paying taxes, conduct mass-shootings in churches by gays, or is there going to be an exodus of gay people to non-Islamic countries the day after, or what?

Paint the picture for me. What will you do if they decide in favor of traditional marriage? Educate me please.

@9 -- Believe it or not, but the question of "traditional marriage" isn't up for debate by the court right now.

The Federal Government has never defined marriage. The constitution doesn't include a clause we've all overlooked that says the Federal Government gets to declare some relationships good and some bad.

DOMA is unprecedented because it takes the responsibility for approving marriages away from the States.

The odds of the Supreme Court deciding the Federal Government suddenly has this power are pretty fucking slim.

What will happen if we lose?
1. the House will immediately begin encoding marriage standards into law. (I know they are so excited about BABIES, they will surely annul all marriages which can't result in BABIES)
2. eventually enough of the House will be replaced by people who've been raised with this issue. These people will overturn DOMA by popular vote.
3. Someday dogs and cats will lie together as husband and wife, angels will paint rainbows on the side of my bitching van, and the Federal Government will try to amend the constitution by specifically declaring it has no power to interfere in the granting or denying of civil powers outside of those involving interstate commerce, treaties, or defense of the Union.

http://www.changelabinfo.com/2013/03/25/… "Marriage is a conservative issue" yeah, like Goldy wrote a while ago. Gay people are about to be introduced to the hell that straight people have experienced for years, oh yeah LGBT people, your troubles have just begun.....

Is Justice Roberts seriously asking why the President doesn't redefine a thousand federal laws and regulations through executive order in direct contravention of current law?

Can you imagine the shit storm that would result from simply telling the IRS to start processing gay marriages as ... marriages? Boehner would sue to stop it. States would sue to stop it. Paul Rand would challenge his bladder again. The IRS would be caught in diplomatic limbo asking employees to implement something technically illegal.

Of course Roberts doesn't ask this question seriously. DOMA needs to fall before the regulations can be changed. At that point the change will be easy, spouses will simply be able to file together. A few forms will have to be reworded. Bureaucracy will take its natural course.

@15 -- The Supreme Court isn't supposed to give a shit about politics. Roberts is correctly asking how one branch of the executive can claim a law is unconstitutional and therefore not worth defending while another branch of the executive continues to enforce a law it believes unconstitutional.

This is key. The court has pretty specific standards on which cases it will decide. If the executive had the stones to not enforce DOMA, then the court would have a party with a legitimate claim. The court will gladly punt on this case and avoid the issue if they can't reach consensus.

@9 We will keep on fighting because we're going to win this eventually.

You already did. It was called the "Everything but marriage" law...