Hoo boy. The Supremes are taking on DOMA and Prop 8.

That’s not quite what Kennedy said (though it does appear to be what the Ninth Circuit said re Prop 8). He said the Colorado constitutional amendment was un-federal-constitutional because it infringed on a fundamental right, petitioning the government.

And, I know it’s a month late, but that reasoning is absurd. It’s like saying that if the Colorado constitution (and I’m making this up) says that a person must be 25 years old before becoming a member of the state legislature that it denies the class of people under age 25 from petitioning the government. Or if the state constitution prohibits dueling that it prohibits the class of people known as “duelers” from petitioning the government.

I know, being under 25 and dueling aren’t immutable classes and aren’t subject to heightened scrutiny, but Kennedy never said that gay people were either.

It seems as if it must be one or the other:

  1. Sexual orientation is a protected class deserving of heightened scrutiny. Therefore the government must have a compelling interest in discriminating.

  2. Sexual orientation is not a protected class so only rational basis applies. The same way that litterers, polygamists, 20 year 11 month old drinkers, or speeders can complain of SDP violations, neither can gay people.

This middle ground is just legalese in circles.

SCOTUS like nothing else brings out my inner ten year old. I want a ruling NNNOOOOOWWWWW!