The other part of DOMA also is plainly unconstitutional and I think this is what MA is arguing, so again the ruling may be narrower than we think. Basically MA says the US has no reason to not recognize its marriages since marriage is a right that is left to the states to regulate. On that basis the DOMA case is at least as important as this one and the fact that it is flying under the radar is not a bad thing.

While it is possible for this to be the result, it's hard to imagine that in this environment they'd be able to not address the core issues. Even they MUST know that issue is headed towards them, and why not address it now, finally.

I go back and forth on this a lot, as I also know this court almost ALWAYS chooses to decide as narrowly as possible.

I think in the end, if I'm putting my money on the table now, early in the game, they will overturn propH8, but will not decide the suspect class issue.

They could rule this one narrowly, but the other one will still be heading at them. The timing could possibly put them in play at the same time. Certainly, they will rule on whichever comes first with an eye towards its influence on the other.

If DOMA falls, depending how it falls, it could still allow states to refuse to marry people but still have to recognize marriages performed in other states, which accomplishes pretty much the same thing, other than forcing people to travel for their weddings.

The only measurable differences were that the kids grew up with less rigid feelings about gender roles (like women should be nurses or teachers but not engineers, and men shouldn't do housework or be secretaries), and that the kids were more willing than kids of straight couples to say that if they grew up to fall in love with someone of the same sex it would be okay.

(umm… duh.) Other than that, no differences.

I'm feeling pretty good about today's testimony is showing that there is no legitimate state interest that is served by denying gays marriage rights.

Playing a bit of fantasy here, let's say we get a favorable ruling from the SCOTUS. Is it possible for them to rule that while prop 8 is unconstitutional, the constitution does not establish a right to marriage. i.e. it would strike down ssm bans in the states that have them. This would mean that CA would have legal marriage thanks to the marriage cases of 2008, but TX wouldn't unless the state or courts there found for it? This would mean that NY and NJ would still need their political/court processes to play out and we are still left with the DOMA issue? In fact it seems that this is the only ruling they can make, anything else is too broad?

Thoughts?

If you think the Republicans planted hooves and came up with litmus tests before, wait until they see themselves appointing the swing vote on whether gay people are equal.