Jul 16, 2009 Ed commented on No Way.
I just want to know who this "Vicks" guy is.
Jul 1, 2009 Ed commented on Savage Love.
FWIW, there are far more cuckold-oriented guys than 'noway' seems comfortable admitting. Spend some time on forums and non-story cuck sites or chats and you'll meet many of them - many of them are 'real men' who have the fantasy for one of a hundred reasons. Whether that applies to NSA's man I can't say, but the tone of the letter (which is the only evidence we have and is what Dan was responding to) seems to imply something else - a truly GGG guy who is willing to expand his own horizons to please his woman and is otherwise secure enough to do the threesome (watch the twosome). Maybe seeing exactly the way she likes it will allow him to push beyond his own fear of hurting her. Having been a somewhat reluctant top in the past, sometimes your own perception of what is 'too much' doesn't match your partner's idea. Watching it and seeing your partner actually getting off on it may make all the difference. Video may not substitute. Dan's advice responds directly to the scenario as it was presented to him - the rest of the supposition in the comments assumes things that aren't in evidence. We have to trust that NSA, with Dan's advice, can make a good decision based on the true facts.
Jun 22, 2009 Ed commented on You've Got Mail, Liz.
My name is Edward. I get called anything from Ed to Eddie to Edgar (by stupid people trying to be funny) to other nonsensical names - there are a fair number of variants available. This happens in professional (law) AND social settings.

I get over it. I may politely ask people to call me what I want (or more commonly not to call me Eddie unless you are family), but I can assure you that, even after 30 years of this, I have never done anything remotely like that Liz woman. That's pretty ridiculous and she should find a profession that allows her to live a more solitary life.
Jun 16, 2009 Ed commented on NYT, WSJ, MSNBC: Obama Fucked Up.
I don't mind Dan keeping the pressure up. I too am bothered by this DOMA brief. However, Howard Dean didn't tear DOMA up on Maddow. He's a doctor, clearly not a lawyer. The Constitutional arguments he were making were highly debatable, if not completely wrong. While I agree that this brief was bad law, bad policy, and bad politics, Dan and Dean continue to make poor legal arguments in order to justify their anger. Be mad, I completely support you, but leave the law to people who know what they're talking about.
Jun 12, 2009 Ed commented on Should Slog De-Friend Barack Obama?.
#40 - You're right about #33's pretty half-assed legal commentary. I'm totally pissed about this brief, primarily because of the horrible politics of the brief and what I think is some pretty shitty legal analysis.

That being said, the incest etc. commentary is being blown out of proportion. There is no "comparison" being made. What the brief attempts to do is identify the relevant principles of "Conflicts of Law" to argue against forcing state A to recognize a marriage just because state B does. And, frankly, they're pretty right on about the general aspects of this area of the law. Traditionally, and this pre-dates the gay marriage debate, states are allowed to not recognize marriages from other states when it violates some aspect of the public policy of that state. The case law on those issues has tended to flow from questions of age or incest, because that's been the typical area of dispute - and the states had clear public policy positions on those questions. The fact that the brief uses this case law doesn't mean that the DOJ is comparing incest to being gay, it just means that these are the cases that have been used previously in the marriage context and that they support the principle being argued in the brief.

Nothing pisses me off more than when the right misconstrues, misstates, doesn't understand, or blatantly misrepresents an argument to suit their interests. There are many, many, many reasons to be pissed about this brief and I feel very strongly on almost all of them, but this isn't one that we should be extending. The DOJ didn't say that gay=incest. It didn't even imply it. It did say that states have public policies against gay marriage, just like they do incest, and that in the Conflict of Laws area related to marriage, that public policy implicates what marriages they have to recognize.

BTW, #33, this isn't actually that related to the rational basis test, it's a statement of what the law is related to state recognition of marriage and what laws control. #40 is correct about why the brief relies on rational basis (that GLBT is not a suspect class). The federal courts have always used rational basis on GLBT issues, including in Lawrence and Roemer. Until the Supreme Court applies strict scrutiny to GLBT folks, the lower courts won't do it either and we need to win this debate about our rights on the rational basis front for the time being. But, again, those are two fairly unrelated points. Point 1: DOMA goes to state rights questions and Conflict of Law principles control, public policy determines marriage, and states have the public policy right to not recognize marriages they oppose. Point 2: If the law discriminates, it does so only under a rational basis level of review, and under rational basis, there is justification for this law. Levels of review go to what discrimination is acceptable and what discrimination isn't acceptable under our system and GLBT people get rational basis review.
Jun 2, 2009 Ed commented on What He Said.
You people need to lay off #9. He/she is entirely correct. If you reread that post, it says, "The states get to decide this until the Supreme Court says they can't." That's exactly what most of you are arguing. Issues related to marriage are always state issues until they impinge on some fundamental constitutional right, as recognized by the Supreme Court. As of now, there is no Loving v. Virginia for LGBT folks. Until the Court gets involved and says that the principles identified in Loving apply to gay marriages, then the states will continue to regulate it. DOMA just gives the states the power to regulate it independent of other states by letting them ignore Full Faith and Credit in terms of this issue (which is likely a Constitutional prerogative of Congress), and says that the feds won't provide any rights.

What #9 said is right. Until and unless the Supreme Court rules on gay marriage as a question of fundamental rights, it would require a Constitutional amendment at the federal level to enact gay marriage nationwide - the feds couldn't do that statutorily in the status quo.