December 11, 2012
By Scottie Thomaston
Since the Court’s announcement that it will review the constitutionality of Prop 8 and Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, legal scholars and law professors as well as commentators have commented on what the Court’s decision could mean. Here is a round-up of some of their thoughts.
- At SCOTUSBlog, William Eskridge and Hans Johnson discuss the progression of the LGBT rights movement especially at the Court, writing:
The very institution that ruled in 1967 that “homosexuals” were, as a matter of law, “persons afflicted with psychopathic personality” could by June 2013 restore marriage equality in the nation’s largest state and could strike down the DOMA provision barring federal rights and benefits for lesbian and gay couples validly married under state law.
- Neal Devins and Tara Grove discuss the issues of Article III standing that the Court will rule on, but they also suggest that those issues won’t affect a decision on the case:
At the same time, we suspect that the Court will rule on the merits of both cases – something it can still do if it rules against the BLAG; something it cannot do if it finds the Proposition 8 proponents are without standing.
- Kenji Yoshino discusses a few different ways in which the Court could decide to strike down Prop 8.
- Ari Ezra Waldman will post a series at Towleroad on the Court’s decision. In his first post he argues that taking up Prop 8 “is a lower risk today than it was in 2008 for at least three reasons, one of which is a little legalistic and arcane.”
- Richard Socarides discusses the possible outcomes.