A lesbian couple from Knoxville, Tennessee, has officially gotten divorced–but it wasn’t without a hard-fought legal battle that ended up involving the state legislature. In a first for the conservative southern state, a woman has been designated as the “husband” in a custody case. Knox County 4th Circuit Court Judge Greg McMillan’s ruling, which was anticipated, came as the Tennessee legislature was attempting to file a bill that would preclude gay and lesbian couples from being covered under gender-specific words in custody cases.

Sabrina and Erica Witt were married in 2014 in Washington D.C., where gay marriage was legal. At that point, gay marriage wasn’t legal in Tennessee, so when they had a child via artificial insemination, carried by Sabrina, Erica wasn’t included on the birth certificate. McMillan initially ruled that because the language in the Tennessee custody law was specific, and referred to “husband” and “wife,” only Sabrina could have custody. However, more recently, he ruled that the law could be applied to their case.

McMillan’s decision granted both Sabrina and Erica custody. Erica is viewed as the “father” in this situation, and has the right to see her child. Moreover, she is on the hook for child support payments.

But, while the Witts’ case was making it way through the courts, local legislators took notice. A few days after the ruling, the state legislature passed a bill that requires judges in McMillan’s situation to give “natural meaning” to words that are gendered. Governor Bill Haslam signed the bill. However, the legislature was prevented from intervening in this particular case, by McMillan’s decision. The lawmakers are appealing that decision.

LGBTQ rights groups in the state and nationally reacted with outrage that the state legislature was inserting itself into an individual family’s custody battle.

However, that new law is already wrapped up in a lawsuit. Four married lesbian couples, each of whom are pregnant, are suing the state over the law, claiming that it clearly was enacted with the intention to discriminate against gay couples. There are also concerns that this law could conflict with the decision that legalized same-sex marriage in 2015, Obergefell v. Hodges.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why does the Tennessee Legislature Care About a Lesbian Couple’s Divorce? appeared first on Law Street.

It has been said that having a wife is like having a ball and chain, which isn’t the most flattering description of women. However, I now have definitive proof that, when push comes to shove, men actually will choose a lifetime of marriage over even a short jail term. Thanks, Judge Randall Rogers!

How did Rogers create this much needed proof? Why, by giving out a sentence unlike any other, of course.

How I Married Your Mother: The Romantic Tale of Josten Bundy and Elizabeth Jaynes

I like to picture Josten Bundy, currently 20, one day sitting his son and daughter down, “How I Met Your Mother” style, and telling his kids the true tale of his marriage to their mother.

“Now kids, it all started in March of 2015…” he will start to say while his kids roll their eyes because they are well aware their parents didn’t get married until August of 2015, so why was this story starting in March? They could already tell it was going to be a long one.

However, unlike Ted’s unnecessary additions to the mother of all stories, Bundy’s tale really did begin in March. That’s when he got into a fateful altercation with his girlfriend’s ex-boyfriend. Because assault is a crime, especially when it results in bodily injury, the young man was arrested.

However, he would not go before a judge for several more months. Let’s just skip ahead to then: he was found guilty.

The Rule of Love: A Highly Unusual Sentence

Randall Rogers does not only have an unusual name, he also has an unusual style of judgment. Take, for example, his ruling on the Bundy case. He sentenced Bundy to 15 days of jail for his assault charge.

Wait! That seems pretty normal. What’s the catch? Well, unlike some judges who like to lay down the law and expect it to be followed, Judge Rogers believes in a little bit of freedom in his punishments. Thus, he actually let Bundy choose.

He could either …

a.) go to jail for 15 days; or

b.) marry his girlfriend within 30 days, write some bible verses, and go to counseling (you know–to prove that getting in a fight over her was worth it or something).

That’s right–Bundy married his girlfriend because he was required to do so by the court. It’s weird when the whole “write bible verses” as a legal punishment thing gets so outshadowed in a ruling as to be barely mentioned in the story, but there we have it.

Wait, What? Everybody Else’s Opinions on This Matter

Guess what? The people involved in this account, except presumably the judge, felt like it was a really weird ruling.

While Bundy and Jaynes did choose marriage, because they were planning on getting married one day anyway, they were not happy about not getting to plan the wedding themselves, and Jaynes didn’t even have a white dress.

Jaynes’ dad had doubts that it was legal for a judge to force his teenaged daughter into marriage to pay for a crime she didn’t even commit.

I guess it’s too late now, though, that knot has been legally tied.

(Also, with a punishment like this, are you allowed to ever get divorced? Or do you only have to remain married for 15 days? Or can you say I do then immediately say I don’t? What are the logistics required here to avoid reverting to a jail sentence?)

The Moral of the Story

Let this be a lesson to you, kids. One fight, and your whole life can be changed. In fact, if you know someone who gets into a fight, your whole life could change. So never fight, and also don’t become acquainted with people who might get in a fight.

That way, you won’t be forced into any marriages.

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Need a Reason to Wed? Judge Rules “Get Married or Go to Jail” appeared first on Law Street.

Same-sex marriage is legal in all 50 states and a majority of Americans are thrilled with the landmark Supreme Court decision. Millions of people used Facebook’s rainbow flag photo-editing tool to shade their profile pictures in “celebration of pride.” On Twitter, #LoveWins became the victory cry of marriage equality proponents. On Instagram, prominent celebrities such as Beyoncé, Miley Cyrus, and Lady Gaga posted pictures of themselves to show support. A nation that was overwhelmingly against gay marriage just 15 years ago is suddenly in agreement that this is a good thing.

I have mixed feelings about all of this.

On one hand, I support gay marriage and the notion that gay people should have the legal right to marry and start a family. At the same time, there is a difference between promoting tolerance and forcing acceptance. The Supreme Court decided to force acceptance when it declared laws banning gay marriage unconstitutional, refusing to wait for the gay marriage discussion to reach its natural conclusion in each state. After reading hundreds of social media posts about gay marriage, a vast majority of which mock gay marriage opponents with a “you are ignorant if you don’t agree with me” attitude, it appears most Americans are following suit. This is sad because American society was so close to achieving the wholesale attitude change necessary for true tolerance. Now, in an ironic twist of fate, gay marriage opponents are victims of the condescension of another “majority.”

The gay marriage debate is really a matter of semantics that revolves around one question: What is the definition of marriage? The most intriguing argument against gay marriage is that of the “slippery slope,” or the idea that legalizing same-sex marriage may lead toward legalizing all sorts of “unconventional” marriages. In his dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts argued, “much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.” The same can be said for incest.

Nearly all arguments against gay marriage apply to incest and polygamy. It’s unnatural, they say–marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman. Think about the social problems. Children should be raised in traditional households. What about people taking advantage of the tax incentives? Drawing the line at incest and polygamy is fine. Justifying that line with the notion that incest and polygamy offend modern sensibilities is not. This is a justification that gay marriage supporters, now the majority of Americans, should be disgusted by.

When I brought up this issue to a gay friend, he had an interesting point. Polygamists and people who enjoy incestuous relations still have the right to marry a member of the gender they are attracted to despite being barred from marrying a family member or having multiple spouses. For gays, a ban on gay marriage eliminates the possibility to marry the entire population segment they are attracted to, he reasoned.

I don’t buy this argument.

In LSAT circles, they call this Begging the Question fallacy, or assuming the conclusion of an argument. My friend set out to find an argument that validates gay marriage in a way that doesn’t also validate polygamy or incest, and this is the situation-specific justification he arrived at. It is entirely possible that a person is only attracted to people within his own family, or is only capable of expressing love when he has multiple partners. I have yet to find a reasonable justification for allowing gay marriage while banning polygamous and incestuous marriages.

So, I have mixed feelings about all of this. I have mixed feelings about the role of government in the institution of marriage. I have mixed feelings about the new “celebrate pride” majority and their pompous definitions of ignorance and love. I have mixed feelings about my own sensibilities and the hypocrisy of supporting gay marriage while opposing polygamy and incest.

I have mixed feelings about marriage equality, and what it really means.

Hyunjae Ham

Hyunjae Ham is a member of the University of Maryland Class of 2015 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Hyunjae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post I Have Mixed Feelings About Gay Marriage appeared first on Law Street.

Oklahoma really is coming up with some interesting bills this legislative session. Last week I wrote about a bill that would outlaw Advanced Placement United States History classes from being taught in the state. Now, they’ve come up with another odd and awkwardly invasive issue–a legislator wants to ban couples from getting married if one of them has a sexually transmitted disease.

Oklahoma Senator Anthony Sykes introduced Senate Bill 733, which would create a new requirement for any couples seeking marriage licenses. The couple must each submit to a blood test within 30 days of submitting their application for the license. According to the bill, it appears that in order to receive the license they either both need to be STD-free, or if one of them has an STD, it can’t be at a stage where it would be able to be transmitted to another. It’s unclear what would happen if they both tested for an STD.

The bill reads:

The State Board of Health shall require a blood test for the discovery of syphilis and other communicable or infectious diseases prior to the issuance of a marriage license.

The bill is lauded as a way to provide people with information of their STD status, which is always a good idea, but legal experts don’t necessarily think that it will help prevent STD transmission. STDs tend to be more prevalent among younger, unmarried people. It also seems to imply that someone with an STD and someone without an STD can’t safely have sex with someone who isn’t infected. That’s untrue, and irresponsible to imply.

Furthermore, there are some clear privacy issues with this bill. This may require that those couples who apply for marriage licenses and then get STD tested then have their statuses made publicly available. That’s based on how the bill is worded now, which requires couples to file the results with the clerk after being tested. That not only invades the privacy of those couples, but also violates the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).

If Oklahoma were to enact this bill, it would be a sort of throwback to laws that used to be on the books in many states; however, every other state has repealed its premarital testing laws, with the exception of Montana. A 2009 study at Notre Dame explained why these laws no longer make much sense, saying blood test laws:

were enacted in the first half of the twentieth century as part of public health campaigns to reduce the spread of communicable diseases and prevent birth defects. The laws required couples applying for a marriage license to be screened for certain conditions, commonly rubella or syphilis. However, after penicillin proved to be a cheap and effective treatment for syphilis and vaccines were developed for rubella, these screenings were no longer considered cost-effective.

While this law probably comes from a good place, it’s antiquated and overreaching. Providing better sex education and resources for young people would go much further to prevent STD transmission than unnecessarily delving into the lives of engaged couples.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Oklahoma Wants to Test Marrying Couples for STDs appeared first on Law Street.

As a liberal, opinionated, and feminist woman, living in the conservative South can sometimes be interesting. Just the other day I was having coffee with a new acquaintance and the subject of feminism came up. She asked me: “How can you be a feminist if you’re married?”

Surprisingly–or maybe it’s not so surprising–she is not the only person who thinks calling yourself “feminist” comes with restrictions; that it means if you’re married to a man you couldn’t possibly be a feminist because feminists hate men.

Along with the upsurge of men and women claiming the title “feminist” there has also been an increase of women and men speaking out against what they think feminism stands for. Take for instance this Tumblr account dedicated to women who think they don’t need feminism. Add that to the female celebrities who denounce feminism without really knowing what it means, and the misogynists on sites like 4chan and 9gag who think embarrassing feminists will stop them, and we have a real problem.

Now, it is not necessarily their fault that they aren’t aware of what feminism truly is. We have been brought up in a society where feminism has a negative connotation. The first thing that pops into most people’s heads when they think of “the F word” is man-hating women setting fire to their bras. That picture is then projected onto all feminists, and they are made out to be women who hate men and who want to oppress them.

This skewed view of feminism is not only wrong, it is dangerous.

What people need to understand is that, while there are misandrist (man-hating) feminists, not all feminists are misandrists. There are extremists in every group, and the unfortunate part is they are often the most vocal, and therefore, the most noticed.

Feminism’s basic definition is the belief that men and women should have social, political, and economic equality. That’s it. Feminism is the reason women can wear pants, hold jobs, and vote. It’s the reason single mothers can win custody of their children, and why women can hold public office. Feminism is responsible for so much of women’s freedoms today.

But there is a whole lot more to do, which is why those women who claim to be against feminism scare me so much. They say they don’t need it because they are not victims, because they are independent, because they can do and be whatever they want. That may be true, but so many women continue to be victims: of rape, sexual harassment, and sexism in the workplace. Their independence continues to be oppressed by emotionally and physically abusive boyfriends, family members, and managers. Women can be whatever we want, but still represent only a small fraction of those in leadership positions. Women can do whatever we want, but the men in those leadership positions still make the decisions of what we can and cannot do with our bodies. Women can be whatever we want, but are still paid less than men on the same career track. Women can do whatever we want, but I’m still afraid to walk home by myself at night.

These are issues that are not magically going to go away, and while women have made social, political, and economic progress, we are far from achieving equality. Feminism’s ultimate goal is to give women the opportunity to be who and what they want, without being held back or judged because of their gender. Whether we want to be a CEO of a large company, a senator, a stay-at-home mom, a priest, a stripper, an entrepreneur, or anything else we could possibly think of, we should have the option. This is why feminism exists, and this is why all women need it, whether we think we do or not.

Feminism is not misandry, and it’s high time society understood that. I am a feminist. I am also happily married to a man, and I like wearing dresses and I like putting on make up. I want equal rights for women, so that all women can marry whoever they choose, or not get married, or dress in 7-inch heels or cowboy boots–so that all women can do whatever they want.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Can You Be a Feminist If You’re Married? appeared first on Law Street.

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has been an outspoken opponent of marriage equality for years. She’s campaigned on traditional marriage and supported it at both the state and federal levels. In an interview after yesterday’s Values Voter Summit however, Bachmann responded to a question about gay marriage by calling it “boring” and “not an issue.” Oh really? That’s interesting news considering the source. Just for giggles (or let’s be honest, groans), let’s take a look at some of Bachmann’s greatest hits on gay marriage and what she so sweetly terms the “gay lifestyle” and cross our fingers that she’s actually going to give this topic a rest during future diatribes to her hometown paper after leaving congress this year.

1. In response to the Supreme Court’s DOMA ruling:

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to join the trend, despite the clear will of the people’s representatives through DOMA. What the court has done will undermine the best interest of children and the best interests of the United States.

This, of course, is the statement that garnered the very best Nancy Pelosi response of all time: “Who cares?”

2. In response to Arizona’s vetoed ‘Right to Discriminate’ bill:

The thing that I think is getting a little tiresome is the gay community have so bullied the American people and they have so intimidated politicians that politicians fear them and they think they get to dictate the agenda everywhere.

3. In response to Minnesota legalizing gay marriage:

I’m proud to have introduced the original traditional marriage amendment, and I thank all Minnesotans who have worked so hard on this issue.

4. In response to the question, ‘Why can’t same-sex couples get married?:

They can get married, but they abide by the same law as everyone else. They can marry a man if they’re a woman. Or they can marry a woman if they’re a man.

5. Ahead of Minnesota’s legalization of gay marriage:

The Bible is very clear on this issue. Homosexuality is a sin, and God will punish communities that support it. Sodom and Gomorrah thought they could defy the will of God, and we all know what happened to them. If the governor signs this legislation into law the Minneapolis-St. Paul region will be next…These are very scary times. I don’t want my family to be the last ones out.

6. On the ‘deviancy’ of the gay community:

(The gay community will) abolish age of consent laws, which means we will do away with statutory rape laws so that adults will be able to freely prey on little children sexually. That’s the deviance that we’re seeing embraced in our culture today.

7. On the possibility of gay marriage in Minnesota:

We will have the immediate loss of civil liberties for five million Minnesotans. In our public schools, whether they want to or not, they’ll be forced to start teaching that same-sex marriage is equal, that it is normal and that children should try it.

8. In response to President Obama’s support of same-sex marriage:

The President’s announcement today shows how out of touch he is with the values of American families…Americans know better and support traditional marriage…I will do everything in my power to support and preserve traditional marriage and to protect American families…despite our president’s decision to thumb his nose at the traditional institution of marriage.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Michele Bachmann Calls Gay Marriage Boring, But Her History Says Otherwise appeared first on Law Street.

Meriam Ibrahim, the 27-year-old Christian woman who was jailed for apostasy in Sudan and sentenced to death by hanging last May has finally been set free, again.

Ibrahim’s story has gone global as she is the only Sudanese woman to escape a death sentence without renouncing her faith. Ibrahim was convicted of apostasy, the renunciation of one’s religion, after marrying a Christian man, Daniel Wani in 2011. The Sudanese government sentenced Ibrahim to death after she birthed her child, but through the efforts of diplomats and other world leaders, Ibrahim was released from jail and the charges were dropped.

Ibrahim’s release seemed to be a step forward by the hard-ass Islamic government in Sudan. It seemed that they had finally realized how barbaric they were being. But just as I raised my hands up to applaud the Sudanese government, they went and re-arrested the poor woman.

Liars! I say liars! Ibrahim barely had 24 hours of freedom before she was arrested for trying to leave the country. Really? Just for trying to leave after being imprisoned for holding on to her faith. Sudan, I didn’t hold your policies in the highest regard before, but now I am so ashamed, I can barely look you in the eye.

So ashamed.

Thankfully she was re-released on the condition that she remains in Sudan, according to her lawyer. She now faces forgery charges because of the travel documents she attempted to use to fly out of the country. South Sudan gave visas to the family to travel to America because the husband, Wani, is recognized as a citizen there. State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said that Ibrahim had all the documents needed to travel to the U.S., but that “it is up to the government of Sudan to allow her to exit the country.” Sudan sounds like a clingy ex if you ask me.

You would think that through all this Ms. Ibrahim would at least have the support of her family right? Wrong. Her own brother was quoted by CNN saying, “The family is unconvinced by the court’s decision. We were not informed by the court that she was to be released; this came as a surprise to us…This is now an issue of honor. The Christians have tarnished our honor, and we will know how to avenge it.”

Who said blood was thicker than water?

If it wasn’t for the international outcry by so many official figures across the world, Ms. Ibrahim wouldn’t have been saved. But support has come from notable figures such as British Prime minister David Cameron who said he was “absolutely appalled,” by the sentence given by the court, and told The Times that “religious freedom is an absolute, fundamental human right, I urge the government of Sudan to overturn the sentence and immediately provide appropriate support and medical care for her and her children.”

Amnesty International headed a campaign demanding the immediate release and halted execution of Ibrahim, started a Change.org petition that has gained more than 600,000 signatures, and released a statement saying, “the fact that a woman has been sentenced to death for her religious choice, and to flogging for being married to a man of an allegedly different religion is appalling and abhorrent. Adultery and apostasy are acts which should not be considered crimes at all. It is a flagrant breach of international human rights law.”

The U.S. State Department said it was “deeply disturbed” by the sentence and called on the Sudanese government to respect Ms. Ibrahim’s religious freedoms.

And to put the sweet icing on top of the justice cake, tweets calling on the Sudanese government to release Ibrahim from Hillary Clinton, David Cameron, and British personality Laura Laverne were retweeted thousands of times.

I am absolutely appalled by the decision to sentence #MeriamIbrahim to death. The way she is being treated has no place in today's world.

— David Cameron (@David_Cameron) May 31, 2014

Meriam Yahya Ibrahim’s death sentence is abhorrent. Sudan should stop threatening religious freedom and fundamental human rights.

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) May 24, 2014

#Sudan: pregnant mother sentenced to death for apostasy. Take action to save her life https://t.co/fQqZlRIRxx

— Lauren Laverne (@laurenlaverne) May 21, 2014

The problem at hand here is the so called “Freedom of Religion” in Sudan. In 2005 the Interim National Constitution of Sudan provided freedom of religion throughout the entire country, but in practice religious minorities exist between the North and the South. Christians in the North face strong social pressure to convert, and Muslims who express interest in converting face even stronger pressures to recant. Ibrahim was the first woman who did not have to convert religions to be released. Forcing women into believing in a certain religion doesn’t seem all that holy to me, and while the step is small, Ms. Ibrahim’s case is a step in the right direction.

Although she is being forced to stay in Sudan, I have a strong feeling that Amnesty International, the U.S. State Department, the British Parliament, and Hillary Clinton will all still have a strong voice in the matter and Ms. Ibrahim and her family will be free at last.

Bring it

—

Trevor Smith

Featured imaged courtesy of [Waiting for the Word via Flickr]

Trevor Smith

Trevor Smith is a homegrown DMVer studying Journalism and Graphic Design at American University. Upon graduating he has hopes to work for the US State Department so that he can travel, learn, and make money at the same time. Contact Trevor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Meriam Ibrahim: Free at Last? appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

Like it or not we live in a social media world — it is sometimes shoved down our throats when we don’t want it to be. No matter what show I watch, especially the news, everyone has a Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, Vine, or Pinterest logo popping up on the screen attached to the handle of whomever is speaking at that moment. Don’t get me wrong, I love social media, but I wonder how far we have allowed this phenomenon to take us that soon-to-be married couples are considering Social Media Prenups.

I tend to be a fairly private person and I don’t post every move I make on Facebook. My Twitter, on the other hand, is an outlet for everything that is going on, but I try to keep it as anonymous as possible for others involved. With that said, there are plenty of people out there who put their entire lives on Facebook and Instagram. I think it’s great if you are one of those people, you are braver than I am. But where do you draw the line?

I always thought a prenuptial agreement was something that was drawn up for a couple on the incase that the marriage might go south and the individuals need to protect themselves during the fallout. When did dictating what a person can or cannot do during the marriage based on social media become a thing? Why would you marry someone who did not respect your verbal wishes of keeping certain things private and between each other and not put it out for the whole world to see? This concept of a social media prenup screams a lack of respect for one another’s privacy and wishes, so maybe you shouldn’t marry that person if he can’t do the simplest of things. Not to mention that respect should be a deal breaker. If you don’t respect the other person then why are you with them?

I love social media, but this is getting out of hand. Penalizing your spouse for posting a picture, really!?! That’s unnecessary drama just waiting to happen. I do understand that if the marriage ends and your now-ex decides to post awful pictures and sexual videos or slander your name, you have every right to penalize them and that should be something included in a prenup — or even just a simple contract for married couples. But just because your husband posts a picture of you that you think doesn’t look good should not warrant a fee. Simply ask him to take the photo down! And if he refuses, y’all have bigger issues than a bad photo on the internet.

According to ABC News, people are also creating “love contracts,” which are essentially something that promotes a way of communicating and understanding one another’s boundaries. I think it’s a good idea but attaching a financial penalty to posting a bad photo is just insane, petty, and childish. Laying out a plan and understanding ways of better communication should be something every couple does before getting married.

Go out and enjoy life. Share it on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, or Vine. Just don’t cross a line that you know would upset your significant other. Respect your relationship and respect social media.

—

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative.

Featured image courtesy of [Quinn Dombrowski via Flickr]

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Don’t Jump on the Social Media Prenup Bandwagon appeared first on Law Street.

Twenty-something women of the world, are you married yet? Because according to Susan Patton, a.k.a. The Princeton Mom, you should be.

In her new book, Marry Smart: Advice for Finding THE ONE, Patton urges young, college attending women to spend their undergrad years husband hunting. According to her, finding a mate before graduation is imperative, because otherwise, your eggs will dry up in your ovaries and you’ll die alone with your seven cats. Or something like that.

Princeton Mom is all kinds of fascinating, and not just because she’s depressingly anti-feminist. Let’s run down the top five reasons why Susan Patton should be your new conservaturd celebrity obsession, mmkay?

1.) Lady is a tiger.

As a Princeton graduate, and a mother of two more, Patton is completely obsessed with orange and black. Her Upper East Side apartment is dripping with it — she’s got tiger tails hanging on the walls, orange and black craft projects strewn about, and she’s currently dreaming of a second wedding on the Princeton campus complete with orange roses.

If she wasn’t busy having New York Magazine features written about her and making appearances on the Today Show, I’d say Patton peaked during her college years. But maybe this tiger is just finding her stripes?

2.) Patton is recently divorced, which is totally a bummer.

She prefers not to talk about her former husband, although he “went to a college of almost no name recognition.” Ouch. Anyway, as it turns out, she frittered away her undergrad years at Princeton, you know, actually getting an education, and then wound up marrying whoever she happened to be dating at 31 in a race against the fertility clock.

I feel like it’s not a coincidence that that didn’t work out, no? Husband hunters, keep that in mind while you’re tracking down marriageable sperm donors. Marrying for the sake of your fertility timeline does not guarantee wedded bliss.

3.) The Princeton Mom is not COMPLETELY anti-feminist.

As a young woman, she eschewed immediate marriage and motherhood in favor of getting a top-notch education and developing her career. She even went so far as to legally emancipate herself from her “women don’t need to be educated” parents so she could attend Princeton.

Points, Princeton Mom. Feminist points.

4.) But don’t get too excited. She’s still pretty anti-feminist.

She doesn’t think date rape is a thing, and she thinks it’s a woman’s responsibility to keep herself out of situations where she might be violated. After all, we can’t expect men to act responsibly! Penises have a mind of their own, clearly. She totally freaked out Savannah Guthrie with this one.

Oh Mama Patton, I was rooting for you for a minute there.

5.) The Princeton Mom might be a tiger, but she’s also a cougar.

Embracing her newly found singledom, she’s dating multiple men at once, at least two of them Princeton grads. Free of the pressure of biology, she’s dating men who are fun and sexy — not potential sperm donors — and she’s having an awesome time doing it.

She just doesn’t really think YOU should be doing that, because, tick tock ladies. Those eggs of yours WILL NOT last forever.

So what do we make of the Princeton mom? Well, she’s a beacon of anti-feminist nonsense, the kind of self-help guru who sets women back a few generations.

She’s also kind of a badass. She’s unapologetic in her opinions, she’s going after it with all she’s got, and she’s feeling awesome about it.

So you do you, Princeton Mom! You be your fierce, tiger self.

The rest of you, don’t listen to her craze-tastic advice unless you’re inventing some kind of drinking game out of her TV appearances. In that case, please share.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Andrew_Writer via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 5 Reasons Why Princeton Mom Is Your New Anti-Feminist She-ro appeared first on Law Street.

So, how many of you caught the Grammy Awards this weekend?

If you missed it, you should totally check out the recap post I wrote yesterday. It was a pretty epic night, complete with a weird Taylor Swift head banging incident and Daft Punk robot love.

But! The highlight of this year’s Grammys was definitely, without a doubt, Beyoncé and Jay Z’s “Drunk in Love” duet. It was so sexy. How sexy?

Dying over here.

Ridiculous amounts of sexy.

This performance isn’t notable just because all of us felt a universal need to go take a cold shower after watching it. As Alyssa Rosenberg points out on Think Progress, it’s also got a political edge to it.

Folks, Mr. and Mrs. Carter are proving that marriage can be awesome.

Now, I’ve written before about how the institution of marriage can be super problematic. It’s historically rooted in the buying and selling of women — complete with name changes to indicate the changing hands of property owners — and while it’s a different animal now here in the U.S., it’s still a source of major oppression. Spousal abuse and domestic violence still run rampant, women are still disproportionately responsible for the second or third shift of child rearing and housekeeping, and of course, there’s that nasty beast called monogamy. It’s got a shit reputation for making people feel trapped and unfulfilled — assuming they’re even sticking to it.

So, yeah. Marriage can be a bum deal. Which is why divorce rates are depressingly high, marriage rates are tellingly low, and movies like Runaway Bride are so goddamn relatable.

And that’s a problem for the political Right. They’d like to sell marriage all day — the heterosexual, monogamous kind, at least. For the conservatives, marriage is the ideal. The goal we’re all working toward. The bitter end.

But wait — isn’t that the Left’s view as well? Honestly, pretty much. One night stands and extended bachelorhood might be glorified on TV (Barney Stinson, anyone?), but really, even How I Met Your Mother’s ultimate single guy tied the knot eventually. Politically, the Left is all about marriage as well.

I mean, really, who are we kidding? The movement for gay rights has been a movement for gay marriage rights. Even the queers, who are supposed to be little unicorns of unconventional-relationship-forming light, are obsessed with marriage these days. It’s just reality.

So, when Jay Z and Beyoncé — two ridiculously hot, successful people who just happen to be married to one another — take the stage at the Grammys and give the single sexiest performance ever in the history of the world, we all have to sit up and pay attention.

Because it’s like a collective light bulb just went off. Aha! This is what marriage can look like.

Over at Think Progress, Alyssa argued that the Carters’ performance could be a major asset for the Right, if mobilized correctly. Conservatives could sell marriage licenses faster than hotcakes if they hired Bey and Jay to be their spokesmodels.

But I’d like to take it one step further. Sure, the Carters could sell a traditional marriage ideal for the Right — except, they don’t fit into it themselves. The conservative marriage model is dreary and Puritanical. It takes a Calvinist attitude to relationships — it’s hard work, and not much play. It’s a commitment between partners and helpmates, not so much a joyful companionship.

And I’m sorry, but who really wants in on that? Not Beyoncé and Jay Z. Definitely not.

So, instead of serving as a sales pitch for the political Right, I think the Carters are offering a radical redefinition of marriage.

Here are two people who have actual fun together. Who respect each other. Who actively resist racist and sexist norms built into the marriage model. (Did you know that they both changed their names upon legalizing? Jay Z’s an awesome feminist husband and I love him.) These are two separate and independent people, and they’ve come together not because they need each other, but because they want one another.

This is a marriage that doesn’t look like work. It looks like fun.

So, with that, here’s the full video of Beyoncé and Jay Z totally owning the Grammys.

Now that’s a marriage I wouldn’t mind being in.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [idrewuk via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Beyoncé and Jay Z Did Some Feminist Marriage Queering at the Grammys appeared first on Law Street.

This year promises to be an interesting one in law. Here are some of the most interesting cases, trials, and legal topics y’all might want to keep your eyes on in 2014.

(Note: I have tried not to include Supreme Court cases that were heard in 2013 but will be ruled upon in 2014, as most of those have already been heavily covered by the media during oral arguments.)

8. Lavabit and Ladar Levison 

The case: After Edward Snowden’s revelations about NSA spying, it was discovered that he was using an encrypted email service called Lavabit. The owner, Ladar Levison, was court-ordered to hand over access to the entire site to the government, because Lavabit’s programming made it impossible to hand over access to just Snowden’s account. In protest, Levison shut down the site, defied a gag order, and has now filed an appeal.

Why it matters: This year, mainly from the NSA spying scandal, we learned about the technological abilities our government uses to monitor US citizens. This court ruling will either stifle or extend those abilities. For those who oppose the government having access to personal information, this Lavabit case may set important precedent — and it really will be a case to watch.

7. Jodi Arias Sentencing

The case: In 2013, we saw the extremely weird case involving Jodi Arias in Arizona. She was eventually convicted of murdering her boyfriend, Travis Alexander. It was a gruesome and disturbing case in which the jury found her guilty; however, they could not agree on whether to sentence her to life in prison, or death. A mistrial was declared on the sentencing portion of her trial and the new sentencing trial will also have new jurors.

Why it matters: The Defense has gone so far as to request a change of venue for the resentencing portion. They have argued that the huge media attention directed at the case has the potential for bias. That may be true, and it certainly wasn’t the first case with a big media blitz –Casey Anthony ring a bell? But if that’s actually the case, a change in venue won’t help — this case was huge all over the country. I’m reminded of an SNL skit from a few years ago about choosing jurors for OJ Simpson’s 2007 robbery and assault case. Watch it here, it’s really funny. But all joking aside, it’s the truth. It will be incredibly hard to find jurors who haven’t heard of Jodi Arias. Is it possible that our obsession with watching justice unfold is getting in the way of justice itself? Maybe we’ll get some answers with this retrial. 

6. McCullen v. Coakley 

The case: Oral arguments for McCullen v. Coakley are scheduled before the Supreme Court later this month. This case has been waiting for its day in court since 2001; there was appeal after appeal before the Justices agreed to hear it. It involves a law that Massachusetts instituted to create a 35-foot buffer zone around reproductive health facilities.

Why it matters: First of all, as I mentioned, this case has been going on for a very long time. The Supreme Court’s decision will add some sort of finality to it, no matter what the decision may end up being. Second, it could reverse a much-relied upon precedent, Hill v. Colorado, which allowed an eight-foot buffer zone. Finally, it raises an important constitutional issue about which right is more important: the right to free speech, assembly, and protest, or the right to seek an abortion without harassment?

Hopeful finality for this case.

5. Silkroad Case

The case: The infamous illegal-good site Silk Road was removed from the web this Fall, and its alleged creator, Ross Ulbricht, was arrested. The site sold drugs and fraudulent IDs, among other things. In addition to being indicted for his work on the site, he has now been accused of hiring assassins. The $80 million he allegedly made through the site is now in government custody. In 2014, he’ll either work out some sort of deal with the government, or face trial.

Why it matters: Silkroad had a huge market. It was relied upon by many people to get illegal goods relatively safely. Most of the Bitcoins (an electronic currency) in existence went through this site. And it was really only a matter of time until it shut down.

But, and this point is becoming a common trend on my list, it’s also another mark of how the government’s ability to use technology for prosecutorial purposes is evolving. I can assure you that this will have ramifications in the future, because people aren’t going to stop buying illegal stuff over the Internet. They’ll just get better at it.

4. Marriage Rights

The case(s): The Supreme Court already put a stop to Utah’s same-sex marriage licenses in 2014. The case will now go to the nearest appeals court. This is just one example; there are other cases regarding the rights of homosexuals to marry all over the United States.

A spontaneous reaction after the DOMA ruling last year.

Why it matters: 2013 was a banner year for gay rights in a lot of ways, but it’s important to note that the court cases will probably continue for years to come. There’s a lot of work to be done, and it doesn’t seem like the Supreme Court would unilaterally rule to legalize gay marriage. In 2014 we will continue to see more cases, trials, and hopefully, victories.

3. Voting Rights Cases

The case(s): There have been a lot of efforts at the state level to change voting rights laws, and the DOJ and various special interest groups have stood up to these changes when needed. But in 2013, part of the Voting Rights Act was struck down by the Supreme Court. So, each challenge to voting rights has to be filed against separately. As a result, many suits will be heard in 2014 to states’ attempted voting rights changes.

Why it matters: The change to the Voting Rights Act makes it more difficult for suits to be filed against voting rules, but special interest groups will also be under pressure to make changes before the 2014 midterms and 2016 national elections.

2. Contraception

The case(s): There were contraception cases regarding coverage through the Affordable Care Act that made it to the court in 2013, but many more will be on deck in 2014. One involves a nonprofit called Little Sisters of the Poor, and others involve for-profit companies like Hobby Lobby.

Why it matters: Not only is contraception a hot political issue, these cases involve parts of the Affordable Care Act. Parts of the ACA have already made it to the Supreme Court, but this will be a new decision will have ramifications as to whether or not companies are required to cover contraception for their employees, regardless of religious beliefs.

1. NSA Cases

The case(s): A lot of cases have been filed regarding the NSA’s monitoring of US citizens. A few may make it to the high court. US District Court Judge Richard Leon in Washington recently ruled that the NSA monitoring was unconstitutional. Meanwhile, District Court Judge William Pauley in New York dismissed a similar case. That kind of contradiction could lead to a big legal showdown in 2014.

Why it matters: The NSA surveillance debate was one of the biggest controversies of the year, and raised many legal questions about the ability of the government to monitor its people. What happens in these cases could set a serious precedent.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Dan Moyle via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cases to Watch in 2014 appeared first on Law Street.