domestic relations, for that matter”); see also Dragovich, 764 F.Supp.2d at 1189 (“[S]ection three of DOMA was a preemptive strike to bar federal legal recognition of same-sex marriages should certain states decide to allow them, rather than a law that furthered the status quo, which gave the states authority to define marriage for themselves.”). The status quo prior to the passage of DOMA was federal recognition of the individual states’ authority to define marriage. “The whole subject of the domestic relations ... belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States.” Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 12, 124 S.Ct. 2301, 159 L.Ed.2d 98 (2004) (citation omitted); see also Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393, 404, 95 S.Ct. 553, 42 L.Ed.2d 532 (1975) (<HOLDING>) (citations omitted); Ankenbrandt v. Richards,
recognizing seventeenyear marriage as long term holding that the state as well as the defendant has a right to rely on compliance with rule 16 recognizing that it has long been the rule that a mechanics lien claim may be waived holding that the right to counsel in probation revocation proceedings is not absolute where the defendant has been convicted of or has admitted to committing a crime holding that domestic relations have long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the states and the state  has absolute right to regulate marriage