It’s somehow more frustrating bc the argument is RIGHT THERE that SSM bans fail heightened scrutiny…but then it goes back to CA partnerships
@charlescrain Since Prop 8's all that is before the court in this case, I imagine that's all DOJ thinks they're going to want to address.
-
-
@chrisgeidner I can see that. But Loving and Lawrence took specific laws before the Court & struck down all similar ones.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@chrisgeidner I think you're right that they're being cautious; I just wish they had hit the broad argument harder before falling back to CA -
@charlescrain So, I think they see this as a way to get there on the legal grounds while giving the court a way to be OK doing so now. -
@chrisgeidner That's fair. They def lay the groundwork that A) gays deserve heightened scrutiny & B) marriage bans (esp Prop 8) fail it.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.