ABA Journal


U.S. Supreme Court

Gays who want to marry in California may have to wait for 25 days or more

Jun 27, 2013, 02:05 pm CDT


I would just like to point out that the use of the term "gays" in the title is incorrect.

There is no requirement that one or both of the individuals comprising a same-sex couple wishing to marry be gay.

By Hedgehog on 2013 06 27, 8:56 pm CDT

This is a bit off-topic, but now that the majority has established a precedent of being able to pass directly to equal protection purely on the basis of a law's mean-spiritedness, without the need to go through so much as rational basis review, one wonders whether the recently-enacted top individual income tax rate could be in danger. That law arguably was motivated by an intense animus toward the "rich" (a class disparaged by many), intentionally depriving them of a greater portion of their property. (For those of you who live primarily in the land of penumbras, recall that the right to property is one of the rights actually mentioned in the Constitution).

By Hedgehog on 2013 06 28, 12:10 am CDT

I don't think Hedgehog #2 has to worry about the rich. If Edith Windsor were poor, I might see your point. But she was plenty prosperous, as was her wife; both Windsor and Speyer had successful professional careers. Don't forget, they amassed enough wealth, despite the cost of living in NYC, so that Speyer's estate alone incurred almost $400,000 in federal estate tax liability (which Windsor wouldn't have had to pay if Speyer were male).

SCOTUS just sided with a rich lesbian. If there's intense animus toward the rich as well as toward gay couples, the DOMA case would suggest that they'd protect rich taxpayers from animus next time too.

By Avon on 2013 06 29, 2:22 am CDT

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.