Under the Radar – Same-Sex “Marriage” via Same-Sex “Divorce”?

The following is taken from "Constitutionally Correct" the official blog of the Alliance Defense Fund:

_________________________________________

Under the Radar – Same-Sex “Marriage” via Same-Sex “Divorce”?

A few years back, the debate over same-sex “marriage” was on every television set, at every dinner table, on every political show, and on the tongues of most Americans. Starting a wave of legal and political activity, on November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court redefined marriage to include same-sex couples. Most legal scholars will never forget where they were, or what they were doing, when they first heard about the Massachusetts ruling. The same stands for this writer. Though battles on marriage had previously been fought, the war on marriage had begun. The next few years saw an unprecedented flurry of nationwide political, legal, and legislative activity on a single subject–marriage. The end result? Hundreds of court battles, ballot initiatives, and legislative enactments later, barring a few exceptions, the states have pretty much marked their “marital” territory.

The laws are now set and everyone knows who is who and what is what, right? Not so fast . . . From a nationwide standpoint, though the movement to redefine marriage was soundly defeated, do not think or believe that the proponents have tucked their tails and crawled away. On the contrary, advocates of redefining marriage have apparently learned a lesson the hard way. They now seem to understand that their full frontal assault on the marriage laws is not a winning approach.

The forces to redefine marriage are now operating “Under the Radar” attempting to dismantle marriage brick by brick, and very quietly. How then does one dismantle law, precedent, and history quietly? Very simple–have no opposition. Since same-sex “marriage” advocates have been largely unsuccessful winning their courtroom battles when opposed, they have cleverly designed court battles without opposition–same-sex divorces. Like many uncontested divorces, same-sex divorces carry a common theme with both parties wanting the same thing, that being out of the marriage. Additionally, uncontested divorces are oftentimes granted without a formal court hearing and, in many instances, without the judge seeing one or both of the parties. Again, very quietly. In legalese, this absence of conflict is noted as the absence of a case or controversy. With no case or controversy, and both parties wanting the same thing, there’s nobody to stand in the way of granting a same-sex divorce. This strategy is being played out right now in a couple of states.

In O’Darling v. O’Darling, a lesbian couple “married” in Canada applied for a divorce in Oklahoma using only their first initials on the pleadings. This ensured that their case would remain “Under the Radar” and not identified as a same-sex divorce. It worked. Later, the judge learned that the parties were a same-sex couple and vacated the divorce decree sua sponte. However, the lesbian couple has now appealed the judge’s ruling to the Oklahoma Supreme Court and, in its list of issues, is expressly challenging the constitutionality of Oklahoma’s Marriage Amendment. The lesbian couple is currently unopposed in their appeal efforts and, though the Oklahoma Attorney General has a right of intervention and is aware of the case, he has thus far refused to officially intervene and defend Oklahoma law. Thus, the lesbian couple, “Under the Radar” and completely unopposed, now sits before the Oklahoma Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of a marriage amendment passed by 76% of Oklahoma’s voters.

To use a crude sports analogy, this is the functional equivalent of a football team making it to the Super Bowl via a series of forfeits. As it presently stands, the O’Darling Super Bowl may also result in a forfeit, default, or landslide victory.The consequences of the Oklahoma Supreme Court granting a same-sex divorce in O’Darling would be devastating. In order to grant a dissolution of the marital contract, the court must first recognize that a valid contract exists. This type of recognition would result in a declaration, either directly or indirectly, that both Oklahoma’s Marriage Amendment and DOMA are unconstitutional. With that ruling, hello same-sex “marriage” in Oklahoma! In other words, contrary to the voice of 76% of Oklahomans, with the help of only two women, and the Attorney General on the sidelines, Canadian law would rule "The Sooner State!"

Moreover, is it actually possible to have a divorce before a marriage–the marital version of what came first, the chicken or the egg? If the O’Darling case remains on its present heading, that’s exactly what may happen.

Published Wednesday, June 20, 2007 8:11 AM by Austin Nimocks

About Austin Nimocks: Austin R. Nimocks serves as senior legal counsel at the Alliance Defense Defense Fund.

http://www.constitutionallycorrect.com/archive/2007/06/20/483.aspx

P.O. Box Burglary

Dear Friends and Colleagues:

The U.S. Postal Inspector informed me today that the P.O. Box for my firm was one of several that may have been burglarized the evening of June 13, 2007. It is not known exactly which boxes were tampered with and what mail, if any, is missing. In cooperation with the Postal Inspector, I am asking my clients to let me know if you mailed a check that does not appear as a credit on your bill for this month. If that did happen, please contact me and Postal Inspector’s office immediately. I am also asking my fellow attorneys and other officers of the court to please notify me and the Postal Inspector immediately if you see or hear of anyone with unexplained or suspicious possession of documents or pleadings related to my practice.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Bill Kumpe
Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 4142
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74159
918-381-9792

Calling Tort Reform What It Is!

What follows are excerpts from a recent column written by Ken Connor, former President of the Family Research Council:

_______________________________________

Thompson, Torts, and True Conservatism
By Ken Connor
Sunday, June 17, 2007

Fred Thompson ... is being assailed by Republican bluebloods ...(because) ... He was once a (gasp!) trial lawyer who supports equal justice for all.

The "bluebloods" are Republican business elites who invest in candidates as a cost of doing business, expecting to get a return on their investment if they pick winning candidates. Usually that "return" comes in the form of tax breaks, financial subsidies, or limited accountability for wrong doing. Bluebloods advocate imposing "caps" or artificial limits on the amounts that victims can recover for damages suffered at the hands of wrongdoers who engage in negligent or reckless conduct. While there is no way to limit the extent of the harm that a wrongdoer may inflict, bluebloods want to limit the amount wrongdoers would be required to pay for the damage they cause. They prefer "caps" rather than being required to pay awards commensurate with the damages actually suffered. ... Bluebloods use the euphemism tort "reform" to conceal the true nature of their agenda. A more accurate description of what they are seeking is tort "deform."

... At its root, therefore, the word "tort" denotes something that is twisted, and needs to be put straight. Bluebloods maintain that conservatives should support their efforts to twist the civil justice system in their favor. In truth, their proposals represent little more than affirmative action programs for wrongdoers. ...

True conservatives understand that accountability and responsibility run hand in hand. Human nature is such that if wrongdoers are not held fully accountable for their wrongful acts, their wrongdoing will increase. As Ronald Reagan said, "If you subsidize something you get more of it"; nevertheless, subsidized wrongdoing is exactly what Republican bluebloods seek. While limitations on liability will likely increase the profitability of businesses engaging in wrongful conduct, such increases will come at the expense of those who are injured by such conduct.

Conservatives should not embrace an agenda that relieves wrongdoers of the consequences of their wrongdoing. Affirmative action for wrongdoers can hardly be described as a conservative approach to problem solving. Furthermore, Americans have historically rejected the idea of a "privileged class" that is allowed to operate under a different set of rules from everyone else. "Equality under the law" is a proud American tradition. Most Americans understand that when they act irresponsibly and put fellow citizens in harm's way, they will be held accountable for their conduct. There should be no exceptions for the rich and powerful. Rich or poor, big or small—accountability for the consequences of one's actions should be the norm for all members of a just society.

Ken Connor is Chairman of the Center for a Just Society in Washington, DC and a nationally recognized trial lawyer who represented Governor Jeb Bush in the Terri Schiavo case.

copyright 2007 The Salem Web Network