The Kandu Bankruptcy Decision related to the civil union laws in the State of Washington and not to legally married same-sex couples that were being denied bankruptcy protection under DOMA.
I'm not sure which "other" case is being referred to related to the DOJ defending DOMA but would assume it's Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management and it related to spousal benefits that had been denied.
The lawsuit was then brought against the US government but the case was dismissed on procedural grounds, inviting the plaintiff to refile the lawsuit. That was done on April 14, 2011 and on December 16, 2011 Court heard oral arguments. There hasn't been a decision in that case that I'm aware of.Quote:
Ninth Circuit's Employment Dispute Resolution Plan. Chief Judge Alex Kozinski ruled in 2009 that she was entitled to spousal health benefits, but the Office of Personnel Management announced that it would not comply with the ruling.
So we have one State case that was later overruled by the California State Supreme Court, one case that had nothing to do with a same-sex couple married in the United States, and one case where the decision is still pending.
In short, no rebuttal to the facts has been provided.
As previously noted there simply wasn't the factual evidence of denial of benefits under the 14th Amendment at the time as there were no same-sex marriages from which to draw any factual evidence. A potential denial of benefits is not accepted by the Court as an actual denial of benefits is required in litigation. That simply didn't exist in 1971 but it does exist today.
Wilson v Ake was a federal case alleging that both Florida state law AND federal DOMA violated the US constitution.Quote:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
REV. NANCY WILSON and
DR. PAULA SCHOENWETHER,
RICHARD L. AKE and
Case No. 8:04-cv-1680-T-30TBM
Dig DEEP! for some shred of integrity.Quote:
Plaintiffs have filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment asking this Court to
declare the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), 1 U.S.C. § 7; 28 U.S.C. § 1738C,1 and Florida Statutes § 741.212,2 unconstitutional and to enjoin their enforcement..
That is why it helps when links are provided so mistake based upon a search are not encountered.
So now in referring to the correct decision there was no decision at all. The case was dismissed based upon a motion to dismiss by John Ashcroft. The Court did not enter an opinion at all except on the motion to dismiss and did not judge the merits of the case per se.
In short the decision neither supported or denied the claims of the plantiff but merely dismissed the lawsuit. The plantiff had a right to appeal the the US Supreme Court but I don't know if that's happened at all. If they did appeal I know for a fact that the Supreme Court has not heard the case.