Dezaad
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2005
- Messages
- 5,057
- Reaction score
- 2,424
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
Meh, it's stayed...which was entirely predictable based on SCOTUS's recent stance on this. They'll deal with the question in due time and at least get some semblance of a solid oath forward at that point. The opinions of the rest of these lower court judges are largely irrelevant at this point.
When it actually gets to the SCOTUS I'll start paying attention and see if they go more towards the notion of states defining marriage as being a constitutional thing, or if they invest it fully into the preview of the federal. Till then....meh
The lower court rulings are not irrelevant. The Supremes examine the arguments in the rulings made by those lower courts with purpose. In addition, the lower courts can foreshadow the relative strength of the logic in the inevitably differing opinions. As such, I think they can assist in forecasting what the SCOTUS will eventually do.
So far, the rulings have generally been following a logic somewhat like this:
1. By precedent, Marriage is a right.
2. The 14th compels equal protection of the laws.
3. If the State has no compelling interest, the State must apply the 14th to the matter of whether the right of marriage extends to SSM.
4. The State has no compelling interest.
So, the 14th applies to SSM, and laws which say otherwise are illegal.
This is rough, but it is the essence of what we are likely to see. I see no flaw in the reasoning unless a person holds with originalist jurisprudence, and that is a minority view on the current court. The originalists will attack the automatic connection in 3 above, saying that because the intent if the 14th did not extend to SSM at its inception, it's principles should not apply to it today. But they will not carry.
Opponents of SSM will have to pin their hopes on Kennedy finding some flaw in the above, and my intuition says that will not occur. Outside of a seeming adoration of Corporate rights, he has generally been broad in his interpretation of individual rights. And, since he hasn't been particularly courageous in his application of a consistent jurisprudence, I see him blowing the way the wind is going on this one.