Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
After Lawrence
The idea for a Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) did not suddenly dawn upon Senate Republicans in the summer of 2004, when debate on the amendment began in earnest on the Senate floor. Despite having passed the federal Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, conservatives have long worried about what they believe to be threats to traditional heterosexual marriage posed by campaigners for equal rights and the courts. Their fears peaked in 2003, when the courts struck twice: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas that state homosexual sodomy laws are unconstitutional, while the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health ordered state officials to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
In July 2004, the FMA, sponsored by Sen. Wayne Allard (R-CO), reached the Senate floor. As introduced, the amendment read: “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.” After 4 days of debate, Republican senators failed to persuade enough of their colleagues to support the FMA; the Senate fell 12 votes short of the 60 needed to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the amendment.
Republican strategists faced a dilemma in seeking to pass the FMA. The most obvious argumentative strategy would be to depict homosexuality as intrinsically immoral, but the appeal of that approach appears to have declined markedly over the last few years. In April 2003, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) caused an uproar when he remarked, in reference to the impending Lawrence decision, “If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [sodomitical] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.” Many commentators accused Santorum of equating homosexual conduct with bigamy, polygamy, incest, and adultery, and the senator, a devout Catholic, quickly became a symbol of religious bigotry and intolerance.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.