isn’t it truethat appeal could be a good thing?  Because, if it isn’t appealed, then the win applies ONLY to MA.  If it goes up the chain and continues to win, then it applies to other states as well.  

I actually do believe that DOMAis unconstitutional and has nothing more or less to support it than pure unadultrated anti-gay animus…and the Congressional Record (and my memory) of the Congressional debate does show that.
Even and especially since it’s section 3 being challenged here.
(And yes I make a distinction between DOMA and DADT as regards the “discriminatory but constitutional” question.

but we’re talking about political risk hereHow vigorously will the admin defend it, if the appeal route is taken. He could torch the tattered bridge he already has to the LGBT community. This decision has many facets to it, including what you said, that makes it a political nightmare for an administration that likes to play both sides as long as it can.

But…but…but…How can this be happening?  Obama is the most pro-gay president we’ve ever had!  He’s better on our issues than Chester A. Arthur, Rutherford B. Hayes and Grover Cleveland were!  Oh good gosh, I’m so surprised by this.

There are two casesOne strikes down section 3 of DOMA as applied to the appellants (with one exception – one of the appelants had a claim that had no standing in that court) via the 5th amendment; the other strikes down DOMA in its entirety via the 10th amendment, using the 5th-amendment argument from the other case as part of its basis.

Lesser of two evils???I guess I should have just voted Republican because I really see no difference here. A Pub would have done the same thing only with more cajones and enthusiasm.
Yep, if he does this, the Democratic party can hang up getting my gay vote again. I’m done.
So, go ahead, I’ll hunker down now and wait to get blasted for being shortsighted, but if we, as a community, stopped letting ourselves get walked on by these slimy bastards, they’d stop treating us like shit.
We’ve been our own worst enemies in this.

well thenwhoever defended it in MA, couldn’t have done much of a job since they lost by “summary judgment” meaning that their submission didn’t even have enough merit for the judge to bother to hear any arguments….

Obama needs to ask himself these questions:Can I really afford to lose ten million votes?
Do I want to be on the wrong side of history?
I have no doubt that if this goes before the supreme court, we’ll have another of those 5-4 decisions and DOMA will be with us at least another 30 years.
The ball is now firmly in Obama’s court!  Our basic equality and human rights are ENTIRELY up to him and him alone.  His decision, and really his decision alone, will seal our fate.

An interesting forkTaking such a weak case to a higher court would mean a broader ruling and possibly a striking-down of DOMA,  …to do that,  Obama has to ‘defend.’  
Leaving it alone would mean it stands,  but doesn’t cover as much ground.  
I think we should be focused on imploring Obama to direct the DOJ not to use lame homophobic rationales again  in the course of this defense.  
Whether he’s a write-off to me regarding our rights is depending, not on whether or not he chooses to bring the case to a higher appeals court,  but how he goes about it.
Admittedly,  his record here isn’t promising,  but it’s possible that all this leads to what in the long run will look like good strategy.  
He’s smart enough for that,  …my doubts come from what he’s done and not done since actually in office.  
On this,  I’m willing to be patient and reserve judgment.   There’s plenty else to be impatient with him about.  

Thing isright now with five states (and the District of Columbia) with marriage equality at the state level, this isn’t just theory and even the arguments that DOJ produced before (as they were in 1996) were pure unadulturated anti-gay animus).
What other arguments does DOJ have really?
He’s between a rock and a hard place…of his own making, pretty much.

Passive aggressiveness when bold action is neededIf Obama is a fierce advocate for gay rights, he certainly hides it well. If the DOJ does appeal this I can only wonder if appealing is the administration’s way of taking the issue to the SCOTUS in the hopes that it will be struck down. Doing that would keep the conservatives happy, and that seems to be what our government is all about. If that’s the case, it’s a stupid passive-aggressive move on Obama’s part and is full of many risks. Even if it’s struck down by SCOTUS, he’s going to lose a lot of GLBT support (more than he already has that is).  

gosh, seems like a no-brainer to mewhat exactly is obama expecting that he can actually do if he wants to win the votes of lunatics who sincerely believe he is:
1) a dangerous, socialist,  muslim, kenyan
2) not constitutionally qualified to lead the country
3) without a doubt the greatest threat to liberty we have ever seen?  
these immature notions he has to try and reach middle ground and win some favor with the teabagging rethuglicans has done nothing except make them frothier and loonier, and to lose the support of progressives who just want him to uphold his fucking campaign promises.    

YepThough the problem is,  when the stupid arguments work.  
They shouldn’t.   If the judges hadn’t ruled for bias and bigotry  the first time, these arguments would be off the table, already.  
This time any bigoted judges would have to override a summary judgment according to the loosest standards.  That’ll be harder to justify,  however ‘motivated’  a given judge might be to find excuses.    

RegardlessHe could be a lot clearer about the tone.   We elected him in large measure for civil rights idealism,  not to help muddy up the principles involved,  whatever the outcome may be.  

No, no – we want lame homophobic rationalesBecause then the judges can rule them ridiculous, as in this judgement.
In the abstract, I think the administration has to appeal any ruling that has the impact this does – because it sets up very different Constitutional interpretations of the law depending on geography, and that can’t stand. Assuming they do appeal, they need to put all the lame homophobic crap in there, if only so that the ruling can point out how baseless those arguments are.
What I would like Obama to do is be honest about it. Tell the LGBT community “We have to appeal this to ensure consistent interpretations of the law. As you know, the arguments against same-sex marriage are weak and offensive, but they’re all we have. We will have to make those arguments in our filing, but know that our policies are not guided by those arguments, nor do I personally support them.”
We won’t see that, of course, but it would be nice.  

tone andtransparency.
Say, for example, that my DOJ will defend this Congressional law complete with the rationales used by Congress to pass this law.”
Or something like that.

No. We need facts on the groundThe best thing would be for this to stay for a year, let those of us in Mass get some federal taxes filed as married couples, get some social security benfits paid, then file a similar suit in another state.
Let it go up the chain when it’s going to take away benefits we’re already receiving, not just block us receiving them in the first place.
As was seen with the California Supreme Courts legal gymnastics in not invalidating the existing marriages, facts on the ground matter.

The issue with that isthe Olson/Boies case is in play.
Which case do we want to reach SCOTUS first?

Is it…Is it possible that he is doing this to help overturn DOMA?  A fellow blender said that the decision only effects Massachusetts unless the SC concurs, and DOMA can only be overturned through supremes, otherwise this would be just a localized victory.  Is it possible this is good news?

Agreed.If Obama let’s this get before the Supreme Court we’re screwed.  He’s screwed us so many times already, it’s hard to be optimistic.  But I’m sure his five fundamentalist “spiritual advisers” will be pleased as punch.

but that would mean that facts……are interfering with Pam’s narrative.

Appeal or not is not the issueWhether the DoJ appeals this case is not the issue.  The issue is whether Holder et. al. will use the irrational anti-gay animus “evidence” or whether they will appeal using a rational Constitutional basis (I have no idea what that would be).
How the appeal is pursued is much more important than whether an appeal is filed by the USDoJ.

Correctit’s the style of the appeal that matters…although
what type of rational basis could be used that did not appeal to animus?

When does it go into effect?Lets say the DOJ doesn’t appeal this, does that mean full marriage equality is in effect with MA as soon as they make that decision, or does it start right now, or start next 4/15 when taxes are filed?
Or if it is appealed, how long would the appeal take, would it give couples a chance to legally file their taxes as married on the federal level?
When does it go into effect?

no it doesn’tthere is no “narrative” of mine, only the fact that there is a political price to pay for either decision. This administration knows this and has tried mightily not to take a public constitutional position on this until it has to.  

Morton’s ForkIf ODOJ doesn’t appeal, yes, it’s binding case law only in the Federal district of Massachusetts — on Massachusetts and on the Feds in that state. Boston Immigration court would have to honor transnational same-sex marriages, IRS would have to accept joint 1040 filings, Reserve and National Guard outfits in the state would have to do something about married servicemembers, and so on. Having one set of Federal policies in one state and another for 49 others would be rather complicated.
And Perry v. Schwarzenegger is still pending in California. One way or another, this is moving up. So Obama has to decide whether to appeal this or let this fester, and either way, it’s a bad decision. He may not be trying to overturn DOMA, BTW, and there are grumblings from the other side that ODOJ may have thrown the game. (See, e.g., today’s Boston Globe.)
Fiat justitia.

I think he knows his re-election also hangs in the balance…I think it depends, really, on his eagerness to serve another four years — I hope to hell he doesn’t hate his job.
There’s a point to bear in mind:  The court’s decisions at least give him the option to say what is true — the law is unconstitutional — and therefor he will not defend the indefensible.  I’m not sure he’ll do it for the right reason, equality under the law, but he may well do it out of self interest.  
This is one of those rare pivotal points in history, where one man has the opportunity to change the world enormously for the better.  I sincerely hope he realizes that in the future this one issue will do more to seal his legacy than anything else for this is the weight of issues regarding the liberty of entire classes of persons.

Politizing the DOJHere’s a comprehensive analysis of how the Bush administration corrupted the DOJ, particularly the Civil Rights Division for partisan political purposes:
Bush’s Long History of Politicizing Justice
By Alia Malek
It’s not only the U.S. attorneys who are threatened by partisan politics. Since Day One, the Bush administration has been quietly dismantling the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division.
http://www.spiegel.de/internat…
Before the Bush era, the political appointees and the career attorneys worked together to ensure compliance with the laws of the land. Bush’s appointees ignored the advice of the career attorneys and forced decisions based on the wishes of Evangelical Christians and to get Republicans elected.
Read the article to get the full story.
This leaves Obama in a precarious position. He can:
1. Allow the DOJ to return to operating independently when it comes to enforcing the laws of the land.
2. Follow Bush’s example and apply political influence in the form of threatened firings to bend their decisions his way.
Obama indicates he wants the DOJ to return to it’s non-political pre-Bush days when he says, “That is the Attorney General’s decision to make, not mine.”
Yet some here want Obama to emulate Bush and tell the DOJ what to do based on his own political views, as Bush did, rather than enforce the laws of the land.
I’d rather the DOJ be an independent, non-partisan supporter of the laws of the land, no matter how noxious, instead of being a stooge of a president, no matter who he or she might be.

Yes, there is a risk, butI think it IS worth taking.  Otherwise, the ruling applies ONLY to MA.  Some other states would probably file similar suits in their federal courts, but there’s no guarantee they would, nor that they would win.  Or if they did win, that their ruling would not be appealed & possibly end up at SCOTUS.
Sometimes you just have to go for it,  I think now is the time.  I also understand that none of us has a crystal ball, so I am not upset with anyone who disagrees.  However, aside from writing the President & expressing one’s views, there’s nothing we can do about whether or not to appeal.  He will do what he will do, & while we may guess at his reasons, we really don’t KNOW what they are.
I, like many others, am very disappointed in his idea of “fierce advocacy”, but in this case I hope there is an appeal, but with a very weak defense.

Yesterday! n/t

Obama wanted the job, but not the hard decisionsHe could have rammed DOMA repeal through in early 2009 when he still had the mandate. He didn’t even try. Now he’s saddled with defending it, and even if he ducks Massachusetts there’s still California coming up, and it won’t be up to ODOJ to appeal, but the two opposing parties in that case.
He’s very good when there are no hard choices. But now he’s “it” in this game.

Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed. For my part, I do not look forwardto a society which, thanks to the Supreme Court, campaigns anonymously and even exercises the direct democracy of initiative and referendum hidden frompublic scrutiny and protected from the accountability of criticism. This does not resemble the Home of the Brave.
– Scalia, J., concurring in the Washington R-71 decision

No he couldn’t haveit may…just may have squeaked through the House but it would have never passed out of the Senate in 2009 I don’t care how much political capital Obama could have spent (and wasted) on legislative DOMA repeal.
Oh, goodness, put the crack pipe down, please.

well, he didn’t even tryWe get nice words out of him, that’s all, just like a Disneymatron President. And in any event his political capital is gone; it only has a certain half-life whether it’s spent or not. We didn’t get a public option or closure on Gitmo either.
We get a nice proclamation each Gay Pride month, however.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him wear plaid.

With ENDA and DADTI would wholeheartedly agree with you…
Remember…DOMA passed with veto-proof majorities in both  the House and the Senate.
Paul Wellstone voted for DOMA.
Do you think that Robert Byrd would have voted for DOMA repeal?
Congress ain’t changed that much. At best, DOMA was a second term issue if he wanted a legislative repeal…and I don’t think it could have gotten done even then.

i’m not sure that that is what summary judgment impliesmy understanding is that when both sides essentially decide on the facts, or when the lawsuit is simple a pure matter fo law and no “whodunnit” finding of facts in a trial is needed, then a judge will often grant summary judgment.  it is a way of saving court resources instead of holding a trial for no reason.

interesting question, since the cases are really very differentthe massachusetts cases are about the federal gov’t treating all married couples the same and not usurping states’ rights.  
the california case is about preventing a minority from marrying.
they’re very different, really.  so you question is interesting – which case is more dangerous to be ruled on first, in the event it fails?  i have no idea.

If DOJ doesn’t appeal, we can’t get to the Supreme Courtso of course we want the DOJ to appeal.  However yes, it will be very interesting to see if the Administration can manage (or bother) to communicate the nuances effectively to the LGBT community and our straight allies who are seeing through him more and more by the day.  The Obama Administration seems pretty poor at communicating (see: health care debacle), the President’s considerable speaking abilities notwithstanding.

I know you agree word choice is important, even if ya gotta use a few more of them…
…so I respectfully urge you to start writing, “discriminatory but ruled constitutional” because there’s “constitutional” as in Truth and “constitutional” as in what the latest ruling by the Supremes is….from Dred Scott through Hardwick through Lawrence.
In fact, decisions like Lawrence only declare narrow-cast “constitutionality,” versus other rulings that affect everyone. It overturned civilian sodomy laws but left the military ban intact [though it's only a matter of time until that changes, and, in practice, it pretty much already has].
As I wrote in a now stale thread: A part of the American credo is that laws can only be “discriminatory” and still “constitutional” if there is a “rational basis” for that….which is exactly what courts have traditionally said about the military ban. It’s just that what they find “rational” and what we find rational are not the same.
The typical example was the ruling in the lawsuit brought against the pre-DADT ban by sailor Dennis Beller who was outed during a security clearance investigation and discharged [eventually forbidden under DADT by a Clinton Executive Order].
After he won at the District level, the Circuit Court sided with the government. Then Circuit Judge Anthony Kennedy [now on the Supremes and a potential for future hope for us re DOMA and DADT as he was in the ruling overturning Colorado's antigay law] wrote:

“While is is clear that one does not surrender his or her constitutional rights upon entering the military, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that constitutional rights must be viewed in light of the special circumstances and needs of the armed forces.”

I genuinely hope I’m wrong, but I fear that something else he wrote then we might hear echoed 30 years later this December, after “the study,” as an excuse not to end discharges:

“Despite evidence that attitudes towards homosexual conduct have changed among some groups in society, the Navy could conclude that a substantial number of naval personnel have feelings regarding homosexuality, based upon moral precepts recognized by many in our society as legitimate, which would create tensions and hostilities.”

Until the Supremes stop siding with such attitudes in the military, just as they finally did [or, more correctly, a slightly different set of Justices] when they reversed Hardwick with Lawrence, suddenly saying homophobia no longer justified CIVILIAN antigay law, we can throw all the claims about rationality and “higher levels of judicial scrutiny,” etc., at them, and they’ll still bat them away.
In short, “objectivity” has nothing to do with court rulings, here or anywhere.

Spare us, Bill!

No matter how you spoon it out, it all comes from your same steaming crock of horseshit that “Saint Obama Can Do No Wrong!”
From AMERICAblog:

A) Last October the Obama administration outright ignored federal law regarding marijuana because it was at odd’s with the administration’s policy preferences with regards to medical marijuana.
B) Then there is President Obama’s use of signing statements to simply ignore laws passed by Congress.
C) Then there’s this from the NYT just two months ago:
  “[T]he approach will make it harder to keep track of which statutes the White House believes it can disregard….
  [T]he administration will consider itself free to disregard new laws it considers unconstitutional….
  Mr. Obama nevertheless challenged dozens of provisions early last year. The last time was in June, when his claim that he could disobey a new law requiring officials to push the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to adopt certain policies angered Congress….
  Last year the Obama administration disregarded a statute that forbid State Department officials to attend United Nations meetings led by nations deemed state sponsors of terrorism. Congress has included that restriction in several recent bills.”
D) Then there was the time that the Obama administration refused to enforce immigration laws because they didn’t comport with the administration’s policy preferences.

The problem with Obambots is that they keep thinking they can just spread manure and no one will flush it away with facts.

Summary JudgmentWhat it means is that when there is “no genuine issue of material fact”, the party who moves for Summary Judgment is entitled to it as a matter of law.
How it works is that the judge considers all of the facts as stated in the pleadings, but from the view most favorable to the non-moving party (that is, the potential loser).  When they do that and find that there is no issue of material fact that can be settled with a trial (which is where we do our fact-finding), the Court can grant summary judgment to the moving party.
I note this because the sides don’t necessarily agree on the facts.  But when the Court looks at all the presented facts most favorably to the potential loser and still finds nothing material, you can get Summary Judgment.
Okay, enough pontificating from me now!

You’re correctSummary judgment means that the case is decided based on issues of law alone. That means either that both parties stipulated to the facts, or that one party moved for summary judgment and the court found that even if the other party could prove all its assertions of fact, the law would still demand a judgment in favor of the moving party.

If he were a character in THE WIZARD OF OZhe’d be singing “If I Only Had a Spine.”
He’s clearly worried about the mid-terms and, ultimately, his re-election.  He’s been making red-meat speeches attacking the Republicans lately.  I suspect, though, that a good bit of his core constituency has figured out what most of us here have realized: speeches are all he’s good for.  How many people are fooled by his attacks on the GOP when he does everything he can to placate them?
As I’ve said before, I never thought I’d see a president who makes Jimmy Carter look like a strong leader.  But that’s what we’re stuck with.

I agree completely.Do what Jerry Brown did in “defending” Prop 22 in California and it will help our side.  Of course, Jerry Brown didn’t use vile slurs; he just asserted that marriage was not a fundamental right when everyone and their aunt knows that the SCOTUS has said otherwise numerous times.  

So soon you forget….
Yes, he’s spoken against DOMA, but you didn’t just limit your fantasy of what he really believes to that.

…the arguments against same-sex marriage are weak and offensive…but know that our policies are not guided by those arguments

His policies are entirely driven by such arguments, even off point. That’s why Lambda Legal is suing the administration for refusing to obey the orders of a federal judge to let a lesbian government employee purchase insurance for her partner…even tho the judge believe it would in no way violate DOMA and it wouldn’t cost the government an additional dime.

nor do I personally support them

I’m sure you remember:

“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman…for me as a Christian it is also a sacred union…you know, God is in the mix.” – Barack Obama, Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church, 2008.

the Cowardly Lion is a good metaphorTo go with the other Washington personalities that lack either a heart or a brain, or both. There’s also the man behind the curtain, who works for Fox.

DOROTHY: Please, sir, we did what you told us to. We brought you the broomstick of the Wicked Witch of the West. We melted her.
WIZARD: Oh, you liquidated her, eh?

Look everyone!!!
The Ultimate Bot has beached himself here again as he only does when the Oland Security Advisory System has put out a “Condition Red” warning about what racist, LGBT teabaggers are saying about His Lord & Master Obama Christ.

Forget HomophObama: What are WE going to do?There continues to be a HUGE problem in these discussions:  WHAT ARE THE QUEERS DOING?  Some folks seem to think that progress is only made by special people at the top of society or that our rights are “granted” from on high by someone richer, more powerful, and usually whiter than us (the Hillary Clinton view of social change).  Thus, I see a lot of “what will Obama do” type comments here.  
I can tell you what Obama will do:  NOT A DAMN THING UNTIL AND UNLESS WE FORCE HIM TO.  A year and a half in office and we can pretty much see his politics in action.
What are WE going to do?  Are we going to sit here and make every self-loathing excuse for this piece crap who won the presidency and his party of hypocrites?  Are we going to waste countless hours dissecting this legal procedure or that?  Or are we going to take our OWN rights into our OWN hands and settle this once and for all by keeping up the pressure and escalating the protests and direct action?
Keep in mind the facts, folks:  we’ve been waiting for a repeal of DADT for nearly 20 years.  Nothing.
One March on Washington and we got the Hate Crimes bill passed.  
I can tell you right now:  the most foolish thing you can do between now and the next election day is to financially support and vote for a Democrat.  There must be consequences to betrayal and lies.  The Democrats owe US big time.  We don’t owe the Democrats SHIT.  Repeat that to yourself 1000 times and believe it.  You and I and every person deserve better than politicians who lie to our faces over and over again, stab us in the back, and then cash our checks.  
Yes, I’m a radical.  I’m radical in my belief that queers deserve equality, dignity, and respect and that those who don’t agree are called BIGOTS and are not our friends.  

There’s a differencebetween not voting for someone because (s)he is a Dem, and not voting for someone because they don’t support the causes you do.
I’m no longer holding my nose and voting for the lesser of two evils. I’ll vote for – and send money to – those candidates who believe that I’m actually a full human being, that I deserve the same rights as anyone else, and that laws (and amendments) stripping me of those rights are evil and wrong, and they’re willing to say it out loud and in public.
Bare minimum requirements to get my vote.

I agree with kevinno chance he could have gotten rid of DOMA even if he wanted to There isn’t enough support on the ground for repealing it, and for many people, it really isn’t an important issue.
Furthermore, he had no mandate, no political capital for repealing DOMA. He didn’t say that he would.

If DOJ defends…it should do so by arguing from clearly weak data, basically plagiarizing the RR lies or providing no-brainer incomplete arguments in such a way that is very easy to refute, – eg. “SSM hurts the institution of marriage, as can be seen in the state of MA, where in 2009 there were x marriages/100,000 population p and y divorces/ 100,000 population.”  Now any lawyer on our side ought to be able to cite stats or references to stats showing that states w/o SSM had higher rates of divorce than MA.

you’re right about thatIn fact, Obama was on record as saying he supports a marriage of one man and one woman. I remember that because that quote, Obama’s voice, was on robocalls by the Yes on 8 campaign. That helped sink us.
And how do we know what he could have done, if he had dared? He didn’t spend his capital on much of anything. Not DOMA repeal, not the public option, not Glass-Steagal re-enactment. Nothing daring at all. To borrow a line from JFK’s era, we needed more courage and less profile from him.
And if he couldn’t even bring himself to try DADT repeal, when he had the polls and most of Congress with him on it, then, you’re right, forget about DOMA repeal. He doesn’t lead.

Is that all there is?
Is that all there is?
If that’s all there is, my friend,
Then let’s keep dancing.

You’ll get your wishRadical right talking points are all the ODOJ has.  Unfortunately, as we learned in their DOMA brief last year, they agree with them.

Emulate Bush?

Yet some here want Obama to emulate Bush and tell the DOJ what to do based on his own political views, as Bush did

Well, it would be kind of nice if he instructed them to carry out the policies he promised during the campaign and that got him (and his DOJ) into office.  You know–the stuff he was elected to do.  Of course, he has broken nearly every other promise he made during the campaign, so why nitpick?

Imagine for just a momenta President who took seriously his independent obligation to uphold the Constitution and urged the Congress to do the same.  Imagine him using these decisions and their very clear articulation of the pure animus at the heart of DOMA to call on Congress to immediately repeal a clearly unconstitutional law.  Or imagine him directing the agencies of the executive to cease enforcing a clearly unconstitutional law, across the country.
All of these are within Obama’s power, if he had an ounce of political will.  Or courage.  

That is a great question…I think Gill/Commonwealth seems the more obvious choice, and that’s my primary instinct.
But…. maybe not.  One thing I’m not as familiar with, and I should be, is how well Gill and Commonwealth laid out the case for heightened scrutiny, but that case, having been decided on a summary basis, couldn’t have included much in the way of testimony on the issue.  AFER did one of the best jobs I’ve seen to date of presenting the components of an argument for heightened scrutiny (immutability, history of animus, distinct class…)
The concern of Perry going first would be that most folks think it’s a more difficult case to win.  But Perry seems to me, (and heck, I’m not a lawyer, but I enjoy thinking about this stuff), to have a very interesting property. If we lose Perry, to uphold Prop 8 on the basis of what’s been presented in Perry, SCOTUS will have to directly address the question of the appropriate standard of scrutiny.
While Prop 8 could be overturned in Perry without looking carefully at the question of whether gays and lesbians deserve heightened scrutiny (for the same reason that GIll was able to avoid the question, Tauro decided that “rational basis” was enough so he didn’t have to look at arguments for heightened scrutiny), it cannot be upheld without the court addressing the question directly.
I think there’s an outside chance that we could lose Perry but in the same rulling that loses Perry, gain a ruling finding a requirement for heightened scrutiny.  If that was the case, having heightened scrutiny as a precedent before going into Gill would be a fairly major win.
I wonder if the conservative wing of SCOTUS is more afraid of overturning 8 (perhaps on narrow grounds) or that heightened scrutiny.
Anyway, this is a lot of uneducated blather by me on the subject, but it is sure a lot of fun to geek out about.  :)

Obama is on record as opposing DOMAHe campaigned on his opposition to DOMA in 1996, restated his opposition to DOMA in 2004 and 2008.
And while Obama’s gawd in the mix is a devasting bit of political rhetoric, he is on record as stating that marriage is a states rights issue (in that narrow legal way, his opposition to DOMA makes legal sense) and he is on the record as opposing anti-gay marriage constitutional amendments because he believes (or at least he says) that constitutions should serve to expand rights and not limit them (a horrific split screen, to be sure but it is what it is).

three different and novel avenuesGill brought the equal-protection argument, but the Judge also asserted that anti-LGBT prejudice, in law, is never rational (original emphasis). Commonwealth came at it from a new angle, the 10th Amendment, which at least gets DOMA off our necks and lets the states battle it out on Full Faith & Credit/Privileges and Immunities grounds. Perry may argue that this is a heightened-scrutiny test, which will put it in hightened-Lawrence territory.
Three different angles of attack. Fun.

It does not follow, however, that simply because the legislature has enacted as law what may be a moral choice of the majority, the courts are, thereafter, bound to simply acquiesce. Our Constitution does not protect morality; it does, however, guarantee to all persons, whether in the majority or in a minority, those certain basic freedoms and rights …
-Montana Supreme Court in Gryczan v. Montana, 1996