It’ll be three months before I know if I passed.

(For those who are interested, the article is not really about same-sex marriage as such, but about an obscure little choice of law problem in one of the very few areas where federal courts have to look into the validity of a marriage — the common law spousal privileges under Fed. R. Evid. 501.)

112. 37 states have enacted statutes banning same-sex marriage and prohibiting the recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages. Ala. Code § 30–1-19 (2009) (Alabama); Alaska Stat. § 25.05.013 (2009) (Alaska); Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 25–101, 25–112 (2009) (Arizona); Ark. Code Ann. §§ 9–11-107, 9–11-109, 9–11-208(b)-© (2009) (Arkansas); Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14–2-104 (2009) (Colorado); Del. Code Ann. tit. 13, § 101(a), (d) (2009) (Delaware); Fla. Stat. § 741.212 (2009) (Florida); Ga. Code Ann. § 19–3-3.1 (2009) (Georgia); Haw. Rev. Stat. § 572 (2009) (Hawai’i); Idaho Code Ann. §32–209 (2009) (Idaho); 750 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/201, 5/212, 5/213.1 (2009) (Illinois); Ind. Code § 31–11-1–1 (2009) (Indiana); Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 23–101, 23–115 (2009) (Kansas); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 402.005, 402.020, 402.040, 402.045 (2009) (Kentucky); La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 89, 96, 3520 (2009) (Louisiana); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 19-A § 701 (2009) (Maine); Md. Code Ann., Fam. Law § 2–201 (2009) (Maryland); Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 551.1, 551.271 (2009) (Michigan); Minn. Stat. §§ 517.03, 518.01 (2009) (Minnesota); Miss. Code Ann. §93–1-1 (2009) (Mississippi); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 451.022 (2009) (Missouri); Mont. Code Ann. §§ 40–1-103, 40–1-401 (2009) (Montana); N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 51–1, 51–1.2 (2009) (North Carolina); N.D. Cent. Code §§ 14–03-01; 14–13-08 (2009) (North Dakota); Ohio Rev. Code § 3101.01 (Ohio); Okla. Stat. tit. 43 § 43–3.1 (2009) (Oklahoma); Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1704 (2009) (Pennsylvania); S.C. Code Ann. §§ 20–1-10, 20–1-15 (2009) (South Carolina); S.D. Codified Laws §§ 25–1-1, 25–1-38 (2009) (South Dakota); Tenn. Code Ann. § 36–3-113 (2009) (Tennessee); Tex. Fam. Code §§ 2.001, 6.204 (2009) (Texas); Utah Code Ann. §§ 30–1-2, 30–1-4.1 (2009) (Utah); Va. Code §§ 20–45.2, 20–45.3 (2009) (Virginia); Wash. Rev. Code §§ 26.04.010, 26.04.020 (2009) (Washington); W. Va. Code § 48–2-603 (2009) (West Virginia); Wis. Stat. §§ 765.001, 765.01, 765.04 (2009) (Wisconsin); Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20–1-101 (2009) (Wyoming). One state, New Hampshire, has enacted statutes banning same sex marriage, but allowing for limited domestic recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages, provided that the couple establish domicile in the state after marrying and that the marriage was not effected in a manner designed to circumvent the state’s prohibition of such marriages. N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 457:1–3, 457:43 (2009). Research produced no word from Vermont’s legislature or courts on whether out-of-state same-sex marriages would be recognized as civil unions under Vermont’s civil union framework under Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, ch.23 (2009). However, given that Vermont’s civil union framework has now been supplanted by allowing same-sex marriage in the state, . . . such recognition will likely be unnecessary in the future. Vermont is likely to recognize out-of-state same sex marriages as valid, as are the other three states which now allow same-sex marriage, although this has not yet been tested in court. . . . Vermont formerly had a statutory ban on same-sex marriage, Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, §§ 5, 8 (2008), but has since repealed it, becoming the first state to legislatively enact same-sex marriage without a court order to do so. . .&nbsp. As of this writing, only two state statutes banning same-sex marriage have been struck down by courts. Conn. Gen. Stat. §46b-38aa (2008) (providing for same-sex civil unions but defining marriage as “the union of one man and one woman”), invalidated by Kerrigan v. Comm’r of Pub. Health, 49 Conn. Sup. 664 (2008) (holding that the statute’s definition of marriage violated state constitution’s guarantee of equal protection); Iowa Code § 595.2 (2009) (Iowa) (stating that “[o]nly a marriage between a male and a female is valid”), invalidated by Varnum v. Brien, No. CV5965, 2007 WL 2468667 (Iowa Dist. 2007) (unconstitutional on equal protection grounds), aff’d Varnum v. Brien, No. 07–1499, slip op. at 69 (Iowa 2009). 29 states have written same-sex marriage bans into their state constitutions. Ala. Const. amend. 774 (Alabama); Alaska Const. art. I, § 25 (Alaska); Ariz. Const. art. XXX (Arizona); Ark. Const. amend. 83 (Arkansas); Cal. Const. art. I, § 7.5 (California); Colo. Const. art. II, § 31 (Colorado); Fla. Const. art. I, § 27 (Florida); Ga. Const. art. I § IV (Georgia); Haw. Const. art. 1, § 23 (Hawai’i); Idaho Const. art. III, § 28 (Idaho); Kan. Const. art. 15, § 16 (Kansas); Ky. Const. § 233A (Kentucky); La. Const. art. XII, § 15 (Louisiana); Mich. Const. art. I, § 25 (Michigan); Miss. Const. art. 14, § 263A (Mississippi); Mo. Const. art. I, § 33 (Missouri); Mont. Const. art. XIII, § 7 (Montana); Neb. Const. art. I, § 29 (Nebraska); Nev. Const. art. I, § 21 (Nevada); N.D. Const. art. XI, § 28 (North Dakota); Ohio Const. art. XV, § 11 (Ohio); Okla. Const. art. 2, § 35 (Oklahoma); Or. Const. art. XV, § 5a (Oregon); S.C. Const. art. XVII, § 15 (South Carolina); S.D. Const. art. XXI, § 9 (South Dakota); Tenn. Const. art. XI, § 18 (Tennessee); Tex. Const. art 1, § 32 (Texas); Utah Const. art 1, §29 (Utah); Va. Const. art. I, § 15-A (Virginia); Wis. Const. art. XIII, § 13 (Wisconsin). Only Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut and Iowa currently allow same-sex marriages. . . . The four remaining states (New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, and Rhode Island) and the District of Columbia have no ban. See National Conference of State Legislatures, Same Sex Marriage, http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/samesex.htm (last visited March 27, 2009). . . .

“Orange.”

“Orange who?”

“Orange you glad you didn’t vote for McCain!”

I still say Stevens is due — he’ll be 89 this year. And Ginsburg has health issues. Luckily all three are part of the liberal bloc and will be replaced with liberals — not likely to upset court balance.

I’m in the middle of finals week in my last semester in law school. Assuming I pass everything, I’ll graduate on May 17th, which is incidentally the septenvigintennial of my birth.

See, if the Georgia suit went ahead, the Georgia District Court would have had to determine whether the bust supporters sold by Woolworth’s indeed infringed Playtex’ patent. This would be the same issue as what would have to be decided in the declaratory judgment action in New York. So if the Georgia court made a decision on the subject, that decision would have had a binding effect on the New York court under the doctrine of res judicata. (Woolworth’s probably could have had the Georgia case dismissed for failure to join a necessary party who could not subsequently be joined because of a lack of personal jurisdiction, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 19, but that’s not what happened.)

Gluckin, therefore, really wanted to make sure it had the opportunity to litigate the patent infringement issue itself in the New York suit, and not by proxy through Woolworth’s in the Georgia suit. But ordinarily, the suit that gets filed first gets priority, and later suits get enjoined until earlier ones get finished.

Fortunately for Gluckin, there is an exception to this first-filed-goes-first rule, arising out of patent law. An infringement suit against a customer of a manufacturer always has the manufacturer as the real party in interest, and the policy of the Second Circuit is to place preference on the real party in interest litigating his own claim, so long as it is more convenient than the customer suit. Which is why Gluckin got the injunction against the Georgia suit.

Anyway, I’m sure all you peoples out there who don’t care about civil procedure were bored to tears reading about all that.

On a more entertaining note, reading this case reminded me of this fun yet highly inaccurate account of the invention and patenting of the brassiere from the ultra–tear-jerker film Beaches, starring Bette Midler and some other people whose names I cannot remember.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqxWhBZXF8Q

Unfortunately, the planned, announced hiatus on which I am now going has only just begun. Unfortunate!

The last few weeks of the semester are at hand, and will be followed inevitably and diabolically by the extremely unpleasant exam week. I’m sure there are fives, maybe even tens of you out there who have missed me this past week, and, alas, you shall all just have to go on missing me for a while longer. Woe!

I shall see you again on the other side!

Update: The timing of these hiatuses with respect to the WGA strike is purely coincidental. Don’t confuse my motives for hiatusing with this nonesense.

Update 2: Okay, well, by “hiatus,” I mean “sort of hiatus; don’t expect anything, but that doesn’t mean I might not post something occasionally.”

Part of this application is a “character questionnaire.” See, you cannot be a lawyer in Key Midwestern Swing State unless you have the requisite moral fiber. So one of the things they make you do is fill out a huge (over 30 pages) questionnaire divulging all your deepest, naughtiest secrets. Things you normally wouldn’t be required to divulge by anyone under any other circumstances. The questionnaire is then checked against the most invasive background check you can imagine. The check is run by the National College of Bar Examiners (a technically private body), which assembles background data from numerous public and private sources, assisted by mandatory waivers executed by the applicant. That’s right. On the demand of the State Supreme Court, I must give this private examining body permission to access all sorts of records: juvenile court records (including expunged or sealed matters, which are never truly expunged or sealed), medical records (including psychiatric records), drug and alcohol treatment records, educational records, everything. And access it they do. It takes so long that the deadline is next month if I want to sit for the bar examination 21 months from now.

Apparently, it’s not so important what I disclose, but that I disclose. Convicted murderers are allowed to be admitted to the bar, but if you neglect to tell the NCBEx about a $5,000.00 unpaid debt, you can be barred for life from sitting the bar exam. I think the key is to elicit honesty. But in reality, I think it’s just a dominance exercise. The Supreme Court of the State of Key Midwestern Swing State wants to know that when they say “jump,” we lawyer-wannabes will not even ask “how high?” They expect us to jump as high as we’re able, so they can tell us it wasn’t high enough.

There isn’t a place on the form asking whether the applicant runs an anonymous blog on the Internets.

So I’ve spent the past few days tracking down every traffic ticket I’ve ever had (all three of them), every job I’ve ever had, every address I’ve ever had, my old psychologist’s records (which may have been destroyed in a flood), old debts (even the paid ones), and so on. I feel violated.

Update: For those who are unaware, The Probulator.

Anywho.

I missed a lot this week.

Happy Birthday, Atlas Shrugged among them.

And Academy Award Winner Al Gore is now Academy Award Winning Nobel Laureate Al Gore. He should go for knighthood, next. Except his magnum propagandum got totally bitch-slapped by the Hon. Mr. Justice Burton of Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division. [HT: Galileo Blogs] So he oughtn’t be expecting boons from QE2 any time in the foreseeable future.

I have a bunch of half-digested posts sitting in the queue which I should be able to squeeze out later this week.

[I just read that last line, and I apologize for it. It was entirely tasteless.]

Apparently I did so well on my citation check for the Key Midwestern Swing State University Law Review (that’s Key M.W. Swing St. U. L. Rev. for you Bluebook fans) that the editors sought fit to offer me a research check that had been abruptly abandoned by another assistant editor. Always pleased to be recognized, I of course accepted. Now the planets have aligned and the Great Confluence of Deadlines arises from the mist. The Day of Reckoning is upon us and I find myself screaming in my sleep:

What have I done?

What have I done?!

That is all.

PS: substantive post coming soon!