Hmmm I expected them to deny cert to the Prop 8 case... but only 4 justices have to vote to take up a case. So if the conservative wing did that with the intention of overturning the lower ruling, chances are the votes are still there to either narrowly uphold Prop 8 as per the Ninth Circuit's decision (and in line with cases such as Romer V Evans) or even issue a broad ruling striking down all bans on same-sex marriage. People say the latter is unlikely but considering the Supreme Court struck down bans on interracial marriage when roughly 70% of Americans were against it, I say it is a possibility. I think the four votes are already there for that, it's whether or not Kennedy would complete his journey from Reagan appointee to gay rights hero... I think a narrow ruling taking into account California's unique circumstances as the only state to have revoked a pre-existing right for same-sex couples to marry will be the ultimate conclusion to that case. I would be stunned if Kennedy back-tracked on his Romer principal. As for DOMA, I'm not too sure... but given the sheer number of federal courts that have declared it unconstitutional I don't think SCOTUS will uphold it. But upholding it's constitutionality still means it's almost certain to get repealed by Congress, so it's still technically doomed.
Yeah, and don't be mislead by what the anti-SSM try to spin this as - the fact this is now in the hands of SCOTUS with the court precedent and social momentum at our backs, and a swing vote with a 100% pro-gay voting record, they should be scared ****less right now! A complete loss for us would simply mean repealing DOMA legislatively (shouldn't be hard once the Dems win back the House), and doing what Maine did and putting SSM back on the ballot in California to repeal Prop 8. A partial loss for them would mean CA resuming SSM and federal recognition for SSM. A total loss for then would mean a broad ruling putting an end to their entire cause.
Let's consider the court's order in taking the cases. First, Prop 8: If the court finds that the proponents of Prop 8 didn't have standing to appeal the District court's ruling, my guess is that the refusal of the governor and attorney general to defend the law will let SCOTUS conveniently overturn Prop 8 without getting into messier issues like applying heightened scrutiny. It seems to me they are looking for a way out, not a means to broadly overturn other states' amendments. Next, DOMA: This again suggests that they are looking for a way out. If they determine that BLAG doesn't have standing, and that the decision by the President and Attorney general to cease defense of that law means that the Circuit court's ruling stands, then they won't have to get into the messier issues. No one should read either of these orders as an indication that SCOTUS is prepared to make a broad ruling that establishes orientation has a suspect class, or one that will result in getting rid of DOMA in its entirety, nor one that will overturn the state amendments banning recognition of same-sex marriages. The situation to day is not comparable to the environment that surrounded the Loving v. Virginia case. By that time, most states had repealed the anti-miscegenation laws that prevented interracial marriage. By way of contrast, we have a majority of states that still ban recognition of same-sex marriages - not only by statute, but in their constitutions. The court simply is not going to wade into that kind of battle with states over social issues, given that the power to regulate marriage was not reserved to the federal government or prohibited to the states by the Constitution. The Lovings also faced a criminal prosecution concerning their marriage. Nothing like that is happening in the same-sex marriage cases. The legal environments are quite dissimilar. So I would expect the Court to escape through the narrowest hole possible - by saying that without defendants who have standing, there is no way for the appeals of the lower court rulings to be heard, so they will be allowed to stand. I had recently come to the conclusion that the court might split the difference, allowing Prop 8 to stand while striking down Section 3 of DOMA, but now there seems a real possibility that both will fall.
That was a reasonable analysis, IMO. My hope is that (in the end) homosexual people will be afforded more justice, freedom and liberty overall. That would be right.
