For those interested in reading legal analysis of the decision that does not devolve into partisan mudslinging, I recommend
this post from University of Minnesota law professor Dale Carpenter.
In case these facts matter to you, Carpenter is gay, an advocate of gay marriage.... and not at all confident that the decision will survive on appeal.
The punchline of his post:
Quote:
|
The decision, as I read it, relies directly or indirectly upon every prominent constitutional argument for SSM. One could say this is a strength of the decision. If a higher court doesn?t like one reason, it might accept another. But it is also a weakness of the decision, from a gay-rights litigation perspective, since it invites a higher court to address them all if it decides to reverse the result. A sweeping victory becomes a sweeping defeat.
|
Only time will tell what the higher courts do with this decision, naturally... but Carpenter's predictions in this area (in which he is both an expert who evinces admirable objectivity and an advocate with every reason to give into subjective bias) have been pretty spot on, IME.