If You Have a Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter Account …
A recent case, Ajemian v. Yahoo!, Inc., came to my attention because it involved access to a dearly departed brother’s Yahoo! email account. A recent change to Yahoo!’s terms of service includes the following: You agree that your Yahoo! account is non-transferable and any rights to your Yahoo! ID or contents within your account terminate upon your death. Upon receipt of a copy of a death certificate, your account may be terminated and all contents therein permanently deleted. (Emphasis added by The Shark Free Zone.) Therefore, siblings, who were administrators of the brother’s estate and despite providing a death certificate, could not even access the content of their brother’s Yahoo! account. This case highlights the fact that, if any information that is useful to an estate’s executor or administrator, e.g., a username change, bank or utility online statements, or the names of online accounts that the user had were provided, upon proof of a loved one’s death, the Yahoo! account may be frozen and the information not transferred but destroyed. That means that the executor or administrator will have to go through the departed’s mail, papers, or even underwear drawers, to contact the institution and perhaps wait days or weeks for final account information to be provided. Ouch! The above is also another reason why I’ve said it before and will keep on saying it: Property powers of attorney should authorize access and control of digital accounts and assets. Equally important, a list of user names and passwords, at least for email and financial accounts, should be provided to your designated executor or one or two loved ones. If you bank and enter into other financial transactions online, such as paying a utility bill, without usernames and passwords your power of attorney agent can\’t properly manage your affairs. Arguably, providing the agent under a power of attorney could be construed as “transferring” the rights, but your agent is acting on your behalf, so the transfer is actually what we call a “legal fiction.” But death is death; no fiction that can undo that. So even if you didn\’t take care of the matter while you were on Twitter, if you didn\’t at least authorize your executor to obtain and use this information, then your family will experience even more emotional angst than necessary after your final tweet. What was the ruling on the case? It was remanded back down to the court from which it came to make the decision from a state law perspective, since the deceased was a Massachusetts resident. The Court decided that the selection of law that Yahoo! tried to impose – California was improper given the decedent user lived in Massachusetts and that state would have a decided interest in the case. Maybe this is also another reason for us to be more careful about what we post; it could end up in the hands of a stranger or a loved one who we unduly and harshly criticized. Double ouch!
Women & Obamacare: It Hurts Not to Know
Recently, I attended a great program on women’s healthcare. The discussion included how the Affordable Care Act would affect our healthcare and the decisions we made. So please read this article and share it with all the women you know. Thank you, Affinity Community Services for hosting, Kathy Waligora of the Illinois Maternal and Child Health Coalition, the Chicago Women’s Health Center (CWHC), and Dr. Theresa Jones for sharing such valuable information. Resources to the topics are at the end of this article. Because estate planning and financial planning are closely related, health insurance is a key component to successful estate planning. Without appropriate health insurance, everything you own is at risk of loss … to a hospital bill or to long-term care. So no estate planning involving asset distribution will matter because the hospital bill or caregiving expenses will have created a gaping doughnut of an estate for you. The exponential increase of healthcare costs over the last couple of decades is one reason why fewer and fewer individuals and families considered estate planning: with little or no insurance, planning for the transfer of assets would be an exercise in futility. However, that risk for millions has been and is being mitigated by the Affordable Care Act (“ACA” or “Obamacare”). Before the ACA, 40 million Americans had no health insurance and millions of children would never be able to obtain it because of pre-existing conditions. In 2010, when the ACA passed, the number of uninsured Americans were reduced by 10%. And though the ACA has come under intense fire, by 2014, millions more of Americans and small businesses will receive 50% of credits to help offset the cost of coverage. Additionally, the cost of coverage for women will be fair. Until the ACA was passed, women were made to pay more for healthcare insurance than men and, unlike what most individuals thought, it was not because most women could become pregnant. So why were women paying more for health insurance? That’s a good question that insurance companies have yet to provide an answer for. But they won’t have to because on January 1, 2014, gender will be eliminated as a criteria for determining health insurance costs. Moreover, preventive and wellness services, especially for women, that were not available in many insurance plans will be available to women at no cost through the ACA. The critical need for these services is highlighted by the recent news about celebrity Angelina Jolie’s healthcare decisions. Included in the free preventive and wellness services mandated by the ACA are: BRCA counseling about genetic testing for women who at high risk, Anemia screening for pregnant women, Cervical cancer screening, Domestic and interpersonal violence screening and counselling, Folic acid supplements for women who could become pregnant, Osteoporosis screening for women over 60, and Well-woman visits. The ACA mandates these services included in 22 preventive services because legislators and the current administration recognizes that preventive maintenance and reformed and regulated healthcare for all Americans ultimately reduces healthcare costs across the board for our country, community, and loved ones. Another important feature of the ACA is Medicaid reform. However, states must agree to take advantage of the new Medicaid rules. If Illinois agreed to embrace the rules, it could man billions of dollars and thousands of jobs. However, the 3.8% surtax on families with household incomes of $200,000 or more has fueled the uproar mentioned earlier. This could result in these households being taxed at a marginal rate of near 45-50% and nobody likes to pay taxes. Still, Illinois Senate Bill 26 (SB 26) is pending with regard to this question. As of 5/21 the bill was passed, after several notes, to the House Committee. As I said at the top, information about our healthcare and how to use that information is too important – not just to us but also to our families – not to share, so please pay this forward and let women (and men) know that \”affordable healthcare is available to you.\” Helpful Resources Illinois Congressional Representatives, http://www.ilga.gov/house/ Health Insurance 101, http://101.communitycatalyst.org/aca_provisions/ Illinois Maternal and Child Health Coalition, http://www.ilmaternal.org/
Marriage Is Not a \”Cell Phone\”
Reading the New York Times commentary and analysis of the Supreme Court\’s hearing on the Prop 8 case involving California\’s same-sex marriage issue, what struck deeper than anything else was the seeming reluctance of the Court to do what it is appointed to do: protect the rights of those United States persons who have been discriminated against, marginalized, or otherwise made to suffer injustice. While an \”all-or-nothing\” choice can be frustrating and using the force of law to make a large minority accept a trend that improves the civil rights of thousands instead of ruling on a decision where a large majority has issue with whether the hunting of birds flying over a particular state violates an international treaty, U.S. Supreme Court justices are appointed for just that reason. It has always been my understanding that the Court, because it is the final arbiter of American justice, is supposed to make frustrating, difficult decisions when justice calls for such decisions to be made. What was the majority\’s opinion when race was removed from the de facto \”definition\” of marriage in Loving v. Virginia? A U.S. President and 118 members of Congress decided to define \”marriage\” and the distribution of more than 1000 federal benefits that accompany this definition for millions of U.S. citizens. So, is the argument that because we don\’t have a 2:1 margin in the country supporting same-sex marriage that we are stuck with this draconian definition that is based on \”history,\” and that history\’s rationale is that the purpose of marriage is procreation? Are we not in 2013 with the Internet and assisted reproductive technology? And, speaking of technology, \”newer than cell phones\” is an insulting comparison to a relationship with all the hallmarks of a marriage except the label and, more importantly the rights that are afforded that \”label.\” The cell phone analogy could arguably be found swimming in the ocean of reductio ad absurdum, which is arguably surprising coming from a Justice of the United States Supreme Court. As Justice Kennedy pointed out, more than 40,000 children in California alone are subjected to the marginalization of their families by a law that has no place in a civil society. The Justice referred to the emotional stigmatization these children face, but what about the financial benefits that the federal government attributes to married couples? If a child is living in a home with same-sex parents who, e.g., cannot take advantage of filing jointly on federal tax returns and discounts provided in medical and other benefits via ERISA and other government agencies, then money is being taken away from that family and, therefore, that child. So while I applaud Justice Kennedy for directing the public\’s attention to the children who are adversely affected by the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and its proponents, in my authentically humble opinion, the argument should have and could have gone further than what appears to be a gratuitous tug at the heartstrings. Becoming a lawyer, I was told and always take to heart that those with great gifts have an equally great responsibility and must not turn away from that responsibility when it calls for making difficult choices, such as whether to provide all U.S. citizens with all of the rights of marriage or no U.S. citizen with a cohesive, civil, and just legal foundation for loving, committed relationships.
90-Second Legal Analysis of Same-Sex Marriage Issues
Courtesy of Bloomberg Law via JDSupra. For a deeper look at relationship rights and the courts, visit our \”Love and the Law\” series.
Lottery Lessons for Murderers
Recently, an Illinois man won a million dollars playing the Illinois Lottery. In an unfortunate turn of events, shortly after taking his smiling photo op with check in hand and stating his intentions, he died. Initially, it was thought he died of bad eating habits leading to clogged arteries and a bad heart. However, something seemed a little fishy, so the authorities were called in to request an autopsy and investigate. Ya think? One need not be a lawyer to know who was first on the list of suspects: immediate family. Not only is this is going to make an interesting whodunit but it also gave yours truly the answer to “what to write about this week?” Answer: Crime doesn’t pay even if the “payor” died without a will. Let\’s look at an example: Jennifer inherits $1 million from her father and announces to family that she is going to place the money in trust for her children. Her only living relatives are her spouse, Jeremy, and their 2 sons, Bill and Ted. Jennifer then drowns while swimming but before establishing the trust and she didn’t have a will. Later, authorities arrest a close family member and charge that person with murder. It seems that the family member didn’t agree with Jennifer’s plans. So what will happen to the cool million? It depends. Usually, in Illinois, if a spouse with a child or dependent dies intestate (with no will or trust in place), then the surviving spouse and the child will share equally in the decedent’s estate…unless one of the heirs caused the decedent’s death. If the heir intentionally and unjustifiably caused the decedent’s death, then he or she will not “receive any property, benefit, or other interest by reason of the death.” Illinois Probate Act of 1975, 755 ILCS 5/2-6. Instead the benefit will go to the heir next in line. Also, the form of that benefit or interest is irrelevant; it could be retirement proceeds, which are nontestamentary. Furthermore, the denial of the inheritance need not be made in criminal court but can be made by any competent jurisdiction. However, a few hurdles still exist: The criminal proceeding must end with a final judgment of guilty … unless the criminal trial doesn’t occur for more than a year after the death. The 401(k) administrator, for example, could have released the funds to the murdering heir without knowing the heir was the one who really retired the retiree. Accordingly, the plan administrator won’t be held liable. Still, the court would likely make the defendant give the money to the heir next in line … unless, of course, the murder is a successful fugitive and not a defendant. So what would be the results for our example: If Jeremy murdered Jennifer, then the money would go to Bill and Ted as intended. If Bill was the murderer, then the money would go to Jeremy and Ted to share equally. If Bill and Ted were co-conspirators, then Jeremy gets it all. If Jeremy, Bill and Ted were co-conspirators, that would be a little odd given that Bill and Ted were going to get it all, but hey… In that case, if there were no heirs, then Illinois won the Lottery. Lesson: If you win the lottery and you have to take a photo and someone asks about your plans, tell them to contact your attorney.
3 New Year\’s Resolutions & the Great Cliff Compromise
On December 31, 2012 the United States Senate passed what I like to refer to as the “Great Cliff Compromise” and sent the bill to the House for its blessing. Knowing the House as being one of the most unpredictable entities within the U.S. government, speculation abounded as to whether the blessing would come or whether the bill would be cursed upon and sent back or rewritten in which case the Senate would curse it. However, for reasons that will likely remain with Representative House Leader Boehner and is compatriots, on January 1, 2013, the House voted for the Great Cliff Compromise. Now, many lawmakers, policy wonks, and concerned citizens don’t consider this so “great” or a “compromise.” They aren\’t seeing fireworks of the pretty, sparkly, ooo-ahhh, kind. Instead, they have visions of gray skies and storms in their heads. The disdain lies with the fact that spending cuts were not addressed, and neither was the debt ceiling. And it is the issue of spending cuts that causes as much, if not more, contention between Democrats and Republicans than increased taxes on the affluent. I’d love to see a poll on that one without “both” and “neither” being offered as a choice. Sorry, I digress… So the brow-furrowing continues because over the cliff we went, landed without too many bumps or bruises, but with another nosedive staring America in the face in two months. Still, the Shark Free Zone is most concerned, at least for now, with that part of the parachute involving estate planning. While both Congressional chambers have a lot of work to do to prevent the nosedive, the uncertainty surrounding the federal lifetime estate tax exemption is primarily gone. Some pieces about annual gifting and GSTT indexing must be ironed out but according to esteemed colleagues, they are “being worked on.” Therefore, the lifetime federal estate tax exemption remains at $5 million and indexed for inflation and the marginal rate of the excess of $5 million increased from 35% to 40%. If you were worried because you didn’t have a chance to gift your gazillion dollars away in 2012, you may have time… If you were concerned that you gave a bazillion dollars away but that, upon your death, your loved ones would still have to give more than half to Uncle Sam in taxes, you can relax, probably… BUT, if you’ve not done anything, such as downloaded a power of attorney and had it signed and notarized; confirmed life insurance designations weren’t minor children; or talked with family…even the most harmonious of U.S. Congresses won’t be able to help your loved ones. Not comparing myself to the likes of Biden or McConnell by any stretch of the imagination, may I suggest a few New Year’s Resolutions? Revisit your existing plan; or Create your plan; or Talk to your family about wanting a plan. You have at least 363 days to go…or until the next bipartisan Congressional vote decides to repeal the law and lower the tax rate…
Einstein\’s Theory the \”Fiscal Cliff-mas\” Ain\’t
It is unlikely that Congress will come to agreement before January 1, 2013. Ergo, the middle class will take a hit – a number of hits. It will be challenging and we will prevail. We will feed, shelter, and educate our children; we will grow our businesses, careers, and gardens; and we will laugh, cry, and argue. There may be a pack of chewing gum in the stocking, but there will be no coal. There may be a used candle lit each day, but a candle will be lit. Prayers will be offered morning, noon, and night. Chanting and asanas will occur. Quantum mechanics, string theory, and Einstein\’s Theory of Special Relativity will continue to be studied and used as a basis to explain existence. Though Einsteinian intellect isn\’t required, Congress doesn\’t get it while dozens of leaders of major corporations do. These leaders, like the middle class, understand and support the need and the plans seeking tax increases on corporations and the very affluent, which I will define here as the top 2% of our country\’s population. And we in the middle class know that spending cuts are also necessary and we\’re willing to decrease funding for valuable programs. We already have and are still willing to go further but not without some give from the other side. Accordingly, we\’ll take care of our families and businesses the best way we can until Congress realizes that political posturing, scare tactics, and continued polarization and gridlock does not work for our country. Furthermore, kudos to the women engaged in this conversation. I\’ve heard repeatedly, from fiscally conservative women and women who are as liberal as liberal can be: \”Me and my family will take the financial hit; we\’ll work with that. Just don\’t diminish our civil rights or the rights of others because those rights are more important than money.\” That may sound \”warm and fuzzy\” to some, but the rights of others include the right to be recognized as a family, the right to determine how your family will grow in number, the right to determine how your child will be educated, and the right to determine how, where, and if you can practice and express your spiritual beliefs. Ergo, \”warm and fuzzy\” and critical are not mutually exclusive terms that can be applied to legal rights. So, despite the posturing and \”warm and fuzziness,\” we know this isn\’t quantum theory and when asked my thoughts, considering the millions of families who will be impacted but are resilient, with great umbrage toward Congress but great pride in the American spirit, I simply repeat the prudent words of a colleague who stated on a list serve during a mucky debate about guns and religion from which he refrained to participate, \”Carry on.\”
Windsor: An Update on the Same-Sex Marriage March
I wrote about this case in the \”Love & the Law\” series. It has huge estate planning implications for the LGBT community and recently, the Obama Administration has recommended it instead of other same-sex marriage cases that the U.S. Supreme Court is deciding whether to hear. Factual synopsis: When Thea died, the federal government refused to recognize her marriage to Edie (they were legally married in Toronto, Canada) and taxed Edie\’s inheritance from Thea as though they were strangers. Under federal tax law, a spouse who dies can leave her assets, including the family home, to the other spouse without incurring estate taxes. Traditionally, whether a couple is married for federal purposes depends on whether they are considered married in their state. New York recognized Edie and Thea\’s marriage, but because of a federal law called the \”Defense of Marriage Act,\” or DOMA, the federal government refuses to treat married same-sex couples, like Edie and Thea, the same way as other married couples. Edie challenged the constitutionality of DOMA and sought a refund of the estate tax she was unfairly forced to pay. The Southern District Court of New York (“SDNY”) agreed with Edie and granted summary judgment, stating that it could find no rational basis for Section 3 of DOMA and therefore, Section 3 violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (“BLAG”), hired by the House of Representatives to defend the government, appealed to the Second Circuit setting forth 3 basic legal arguments and additional non-legal arguments. The legal arguments were as follows: Federal estate tax law provides that the state of domicile determines marital status and because at the time of Thea’s death, New York didn’t perform same-sex marriages, the lower court’s decision should be overturned. The Second Circuit stated that it could predict that New York would have recognized the marriage at the time of Thea’s death, so that argument was defeated. Congress can prohibit same-sex marriages like states can per Baker v. Nelson. The Second Circuit reminded BLAG that state regulation and federal regulation are different. So Baker wasn’t applicable in this case. Section 3 of DOMA should be analyzed using the rational basis or “rational basis plus.” The Second Circuit stated there is no such thing as \”rational basis plus\” yet and set out a four-prong test for heightened scrutiny per Bowen v. Gilliard and City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center and established that the LGBT community passed this test and should be considered a quasi-suspect class. After reviewing the non-legal arguments to provide rhetorical dicta, the Second Circuit affirmed SDNY’s decision, holding that “Section 3 of DOMA violates equal protection and is therefore unconstitutional.” The thorny part of this case is that the Second Circuit’s decision reads like a roadmap for the Supreme Court to punt the cases on DOMA back to the states. However, the argument against the proposition that state and federal regulations are different and, therefore, this should be an issue left for the states to decide, is that many regulations may be different but many state and federal regulations also overlap, if not in substance, in application. Hence, parsing the overlap of the rules and regulations that DOMA implicates may be more burdensome with respect to costs for both the states and the federal government than simply ruling that DOMA is unconstitutional.
Love & the Law: Privacy? No. Sex? No. History? No. Liberty? Yep, We Were Wrong. Pt 1
Updated May 27, 2023 Finishing the “Love & the Law” series, this article reviews 2 cases at the heart of the right to privacy for the LGBT community: Bowers v. Hardwick, decided in June 1986, and Lawrence v. Texas, decided 15 years later in June 2003. First Bowers… Hardwick was arrested in 1982 and charged with violating Georgia’s sodomy law. The District Attorney refused to continue prosecuting the case for lack of evidence. Still, Hardwick sued on the grounds that the Georgia statute, prohibiting “any sexual act involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another,” violated his constitutional rights. The district court dismissed the suit for the failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Eleventh Circuit reversed using a right of privacy as its rationale, requiring the State to prove it had a compelling interest in maintaining the law. The State appealed; other courts disagreed, so the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear the case. The Court framed the issue as being whether the U.S. Constitution provided a fundamental right to the LGBT community to participate in gay sex. Talk about a narrow frame. It further explained that gay sex was not a required component of privacy rights and though Hardwick argued on the grounds using other Supreme Court cases – Griswold v. Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. Baird, the Court asserted that there was no link between those cases and his. Those cases involved family, marriage, or procreation; this case did not. The Court continued to explain that it was trying not to judge the case on ideological, moral grounds and would look to the defining essence of those rights that require a compelling interest be shown. That essence could be determined under one of 2 formulae: (1) if the activity was proscribed, there would be no liberty or justice; or (2) the rights were those “deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition.” According to the Court, gay sex didn’t meet either formula. Then, the Court continued to judge the case on ideological and moral grounds: “The law, however, is constantly based on notions of morality, and if all laws representing essentially moral choices are to be invalidated…the courts will be very busy indeed.” Eleventh Circuit’s decision was reversed and the law remained valid until… Lawrence v. Texas… The Love & the Law Episodes: Brief Case History | Contraceptives | The Color of Love | The IRS v. NY | Privacy? No. Sex? No. History? No. Liberty? Yep. Pt 1 | Privacy? No. Sex? No. History? No. Liberty? Yep. Pt 2
Love & the Law: Privacy? No. Sex? No. History? No. Liberty? Yep, We Were Wrong. Pt 2
Lawrence v. Texas… From the very beginning of the Lawrence Opinion, one could tell that the Bowers decision was in trouble. Sometimes justices write opinions in this manner to throw readers off, but it wasn’t the case in Lawrence when Justice Kennedy opened the Opinion by explaining that the cornerstone of the Fourteenth Amendment is liberty and embedded in liberty is the right to privacy. Facts Houston , Texas police were called to a house on a weapons disturbance tip. They entered the home to witness John Lawrence and Tyrone Garner engaged in sexual activity. Both were charged and convicted of “deviate sexual intercourse,” a violation of a Texas statute. In their defense, they challenged the statute as unconstitutional with regards to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and a similar provision in the Texas Constitution. The Texas Court of Appeals rejected the defense and Mr. Lawrence appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court saw Lawrence as presenting 3 issues, whether: The Texas statute violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; The Texas statute violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and Bowers was decided correctly. In analyzing the issues, the Court first turned to Griswold, which established privacy rights for marital relationships but, according to the Court, also set the foundation for individual privacy rights outside of marriage. So Mr. Hardwick was correct. The Court also considered another landmark case, Eisenstadt v. Baird, where personal rights of unmarried persons involving contraceptives was at issue. It then looked at Roe v. Wade and established the following rationale: Per Griswold, Eisenstadt, and Roe v. Wade, the privacy of a woman resulted in a woman’s right to “make fundamental decisions regarding her destiny.” It stands to reason that if the rights apply to women, then they assuredly apply to men. Accordingly, Due Process protection is much more expansive than the language implies. Next, the Court considered Carey v. Population Services International, where the Court ruled that a law prohibiting the sale of contraceptives to persons under 16 years was invalid. The Court took these steps to show where the law had moved on the issue of privacy in intimate relations by the time the Bowers case was to be decided. It explained that Bowers was similar to Lawrence but the Georgia statute in Bowers applied to all Georgia citizens, whereas the Texas statute only applied to homosexuals. So equal protection of the laws was not provided to Mr. Lawrence. The Court then considered the framing of the issue by the Court in Bowers, stating that it was too narrowly framed because it failed to consider the issue of liberty. Hmmm… The Court stated that adults, including members of the LGBT community, may choose the kind of relationships they want to enter into without sacrificing their dignity. Addressing the issue of community and tradition as brought up by the Court in Bowers, the Court gave a history lesson on the law against homosexuals, stating that, in fact, there was no tradition of laws against gays until the late 19th century: Heterosexual couples participated in the same acts that homosexuals engaged in and it was the heterosexual behavior that was at issue initially. The prohibition was targeting non-procreative sexual activity, not homosexual activity per se. “It was not until the 1970’s that any State singled out same-sex relations for criminal prosecution and only 9 States have done so.” Read: Lawrence’s and Geddes’ fundamental right of liberty and the inherent right of privacy found within the right to liberty were violated. The Court acknowledged the importance of the Bowers’ rationale to a certain extent, recognizing that the Court in Bowers was rightfully giving a voice to those who held strong moral convictions. However, the Court qualified that recognition by also stating that the Court’s job is to define liberty, not push through society’s moral ideologies. The Court continued to explain that well-esteemed bodies of American and European jurisprudence considered such laws draconian and restated what it said in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which was decided after Bowers: These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Having re-established the principals laid out in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Court then proceeded to discuss Romer v. Evans, stating that one of the intended results of the Romer decision was the removal of the stigma associated with criminalizing conduct such as gay sex. After discussing Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Romer, the Court pointed out that the rationale for Bowers had been significantly weakened. Still, recognizing the doctrine of stare decisis in which precedent is given a very high amount of deference because of the legitimacy it gives to Court rulings, i.e., the law, and the stability it creates in the law and society, the Court nevertheless pointed out that the doctrine is not absolute. Hence, the Court concluded that Bowers wasn’t right when it was decided, and was not right now and therefore should not stand and, neither should the Texas statute. Thus, ends the Love & the Law series for now. Given the thorough analysis of liberty and the right to privacy performed by the Court in Lawrence, one can only wonder how long it will take before DOMA is constitutionally invalidated as it is a clear violation of the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and likewise implicates the Fifth Amendment. Sidebar Recently, Massachusetts has requested that the Supreme Court should hear cases involving DOMA and invalidate the congressional statute because the statute forces States like Massachusetts, which perform and recognize same-sex marriages, to discriminate against its citizens and that per the Tenth Amendment, which authorizes Congress’s Spending power,