What the Supreme Court’s marriage equality ruling means for reproductive rights.

[davidm]

What the Supreme Court's marriage equality ruling means for reproductive rights

In his opinion for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy references the interplay of “personal choice” as it relates to same-sex marriage. But, in doing so, he also acknowledges the way individual autonomy relates to other life decisions, such as the right to use contraception or have a baby:

A first premise of the Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. …Like choices concerning contraception, family relationships, procreation, and childrearing, all of which are protected by the Constitution, decisions concerning marriage are among the most intimate that an individual can make.

The article goes on to say that this could set a precedent in the fight for reproductive rights. Does it? Doesn’t it? Do opinions set precedent?

[UltraVires]

@davidm

What the Supreme Court's marriage equality ruling means for reproductive rights | Salon.com
The article goes on to say that this could set a precedent in the fight for reproductive rights. Does it? Doesn’t it? Do opinions set precedent?

I’m interested in this question as well. Everyone knows my opinion on this ruling, but it’s a done deal and the debate is over. Congratulations to everyone who is celebrating this ruling. I truly mean that.

Anyways, the future of constitutional law and 14th amendment jurisprudence, IMHO is very much in doubt. I think that the tiers of scrutiny (strict, intermediate, and rational basis) are gone. (I think.)

All one needs to do is show that a law intrudes on your “autonomy” “dignity” or “intimate choices” and you have a prima facie case for a recognized constitutional right and an invalidation of the law. The only standard is whether 5 justices agree with you. How it plays out in practice remains to be seen.

[davidm]

Whether or not at least 5 justices agree with you has always been the only standard.

[iamthewalrus_3]

@davidm

What the Supreme Court's marriage equality ruling means for reproductive rights | Salon.com
The article goes on to say that this could set a precedent in the fight for reproductive rights. Does it? Doesn’t it? Do opinions set precedent?

Opinions certainly can set precedent. Future courts will consider the basis on which previous rulings were made.

In this case, I don’t think Kennedy is hinting at any future expansion of the right to an abortion. The court has been walking a narrow line as far as that issue goes, and I don’t see their position changing absent a major public opinion shift.

All one needs to do is show that a law intrudes on your “autonomy” “dignity” or “intimate choices” and you have a prima facie case for a recognized constitutional right and an invalidation of the law.

I don’t think that’s true. Kennedy spends basically the entire opinion talking about how marriage is particularly special and unique with respect to personal liberty.