DOMA is a federal law and they may have to be more definitive about dealing with it, rather than ruling on a state law

Yeah, the problem with DOMA is that, IIRC, there is a split in the district courts on its constitutionality. So there's justification for taking it, and I don't know about any problems with standing, but given sufficient incentive I'm sure the Supremes can come up with an argument for not getting to the merits.

I do think they could invalidate DOMA without getting to the merits by finding it a violation of the full faith and credit clause, which has always been a weakness. But given how reluctant they are to address Prop 8, that seems unlikely.

Procedure matters!

Yes, except in either instance they end up with an invalidated Prop 8. Finding no standing gives you a broader ruling based on the Walker decision, though, compared with the 9th Circuit decision, which was all about taking away a right that had been previously granted.

So I think this is good news for California, almost any way it turns out, but the ramifications outside the state will vary, depending.

The standing problems with the DOMA case were briefed (at the request of the court) by a professor from Harvard, and are much more complex (because you have two entities who want to be "the gov't" in the case).

Ms. Jackson filed her brief in late January. In it, she argues that BLAG does not have a right to appear in court to defend DOMA because even the full Congress wouldn’t have the right to do so. But even if Congress did, she adds, that still wouldn’t be enough for BLAG, because only Congress – not BLAG – would be injured by the Obama administration’s failure to enforce the statute. Moreover, the Court can’t review the case for the additional reason that the federal government agreed with both Ms. Windsor and the lower court decision that it is now asking the Court to review, and so the case lacks the kind of “case or controversy” that the Constitution requires for the courts to rule.

Which would mean that marriage equality would be re-established in California, but wouldn't establish a precedent for the rest of the country, and wouldn't commit them to saying there's an equal protection right to marriage regardless of gender.

This is consistent with what some of the Supremes have been saying about Roe v. Wade - that it was too much, too soon and should have been played out on a state by state basis. That it would have been less polarizing that way.

I don't agree with that, but it seems like they're going to let gay marriage trickle out.

it seems like they're going to let gay marriage trickle out

Which is so ridiculous. I do wonder whether any of the evidence presented in the briefs is from any of the other developed nations that have had marriage equality for years without the end of civilization as we know it. Or do they need 2 or 3 generations worth of proof?

While grand victories for human rights are very fulfilling, allowing the sea change of public opinion to shift without giving opponents a legal decision to feel martyrish about seems to be a less disruptive way to get change to stick and feel natural. More and more people are saying, "You know, objecting to gay people getting married is really kind of silly, isn't it?"

While grand victories for human rights are very fulfilling, allowing the sea change of public opinion to shift without giving opponents a legal decision to feel martyrish about seems to be a less disruptive way to get change to stick and feel natural. More and more people are saying, "You know, objecting to gay people getting married is really kind of silly, isn't it?"

Eh. After each lower court decision allowing same sex marriage and/or civil status this has been the argument from people opposed to it. Judicial fiat, what not. But they react just as angrily when it's been legislative or via voting mechanisms. They're going to feel martyish about it regardless, so I'd as soon not hold up people's rights while they take the next ten years to get over their butthurt.

The problem of course is that couples are really suffering without having equal marriage rights. A court case might be seen as those in opposition as something that they can whine about, but it can afford people equal status under the law.

Which has very real consequences.

Quick sidebar on another subject: more photos from the David Bowie exhibit at the V&A Museum. [link]

These are pretty awesome.

But they react just as angrily when it's been legislative or via voting mechanisms. They're going to feel martyish about it regardless, so I'd as soon not hold up people's rights while they take the next ten years to get over their butthurt.

This.