>>I haven't had a chance to read the opinions yet but from what I gather the Supremes ruled DOMA unconstitutional based upon violation of the equal protection clause, and decided that prop 8 is not in their juristiction and that the plantiff's did not have standing, thus leaving the 9th circuit's striking down of the law in place. There are a number of dissents, including a sharply worded on by Scalia.
>>
>>My initial take :
>>
>>1) I agree with the equal protection violation. This seemed the most straightforward to me.
>>
>>2) I'm not sure about the lack of juristiction and standing. It's an odd situation because California decided not to pursue the case which overturned an initiative passed by her citizens. The group of citizens who proposed the initiative pursued, yet they don't have standing? If I'm interpreting correctly, citizens are not allowed to pursue the legal case for initiatives they voted for if the attorney general decides not to? Seems like an awful weakening of the initiative process to me.
>>
>>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324520904578553500028771488.html?mod=WSJ_Home_largeHeadline
>
>Of course I'm glad they ruled as they did on DOMA since it would seem there is no state interest in putting this kind of restriction on free-association and contract.
>
>But I am also a little confused about the reasoning, both in favor and in dissent. I can't see where striking down DOMA could be considered "activism" in any way, as the the courts correct role is to rule on laws that violate constitutional principles, and I think DOMA clearly does. But it also seems that what the upshot is only that there is now no Federal impediment ( other states besides Calif prop 8 have DOMA at the state level - Ohio for one.) so this only means that states who have explicitly allowed full marriage equality have a right to do so. I just wonder what case-law will result under full-faith and credit now for MA marriages in Utah or Ohio. Undoubtedly this is only the beginning and now we'll see challenges to DOM laws. OH will be a good place to start as I think Kasich will come out well on this as he knows it would be good for the state.

After a little more digging, but without yet reading the opinions, this is how I read it as well. DOMA is gone so the feds must not impede benefits for same-sex marriages, however, "marriage" as a contract remains the juristiction of the states to decide.

Another interesting tidbit, if I'm reading correctly is that while the citizens of CA were denied standing for pursuing the case when the state of CA did not, the Congress was granted standing (thus allowing the justices to strike down the law) when the Executive stopped pursuing the case. Seems rather selective, dontchathink?

>For the same reasons I won't feel bad if a lot of the voting rights act is nullified - especially in regard to racial preferences in admissions. I think the equality and diversity that is the stated goal is better achieved using economic, cultural and class factors instead and the outcome will be much easier to justify.