@antr: thank you for your question. no, if DOMA sec 3 is struck down. DOMA sec 2 remains. but DOMA sec 2 is just a restatement of current law.

@tcw: mentioned ms Kaplan twice. Email by Ari, Typos by iPhone.

@jay: thanks! but dont steal. borrow… and cite! :)

@carl: thank you for your question. i see that another member of our community has answered your question. @buster, thank you. your insights are correct. i would add only that in addition to tossing a case as improvidently granted, sometimes SCOTUS will toss for lack of standing and issue an opinion to clarify standing rules. that is, issue a substantive opinion clarifying standing/jurisdiction.

@notthatrob: thank you for your question. just section 3.

@anon: thank you for your comment. With all due respect, you are wrong about a few things. SCOTUS does not have to take the case to get rid of the ninth circuit precedent. A no standing decision eliminates it, erases it from existing, as you say, leaving only a district ct opinion that has less precedential/persuasive authority than an appellate court decision. The dist ct decision may have been broader, but it has little legal precedential effect. If were talking expressive/political effect, well, that cats out of the bag on that one and overturning or eradicating the ninth circuits opinion wont matter. Email by Ari, Typos by iPhone.

@tomtallis. Thank you for your question. The court cannot grant provisional standing. Standing is jurisdictional. If no standing, the court doesnt have the right to even hear the case and proceed further. Email by Ari, Typos by iPhone.

@michaelandfred: thank you for your question. Unfortunately, the FFC clause require out of state judgments to be recognized in another state. The conventional view, though some disagree and want to change this, is that marriage licenses are not final judgments. No judge, no adversarial proceeding, not what the FFC was for. Oddly, an out of state gay divorce would fall under the clause bc it has all those things and is a final court judgment. So, a state need not recognize a gay marriage but does have to recognize a gay divorce. But, of course, if its a non equality state, it didnt think the gay couple was ever married to begin with, so the gay divorce would be moot. Make sorta sense? Email by Ari, Typos by iPhone.

@zlick. Thank you for your question. No, deciding that the parties do indeed have standing is not already more than the court had to decide. Standing is jurisdictional: if no standing, no case; if yes standing, then we have a case. Therefore, if yes standing, then the court has to go on and actually decide the case. Then the rule of thumb applies to actually deciding the case. Email by Ari, Typos by iPhone.

@rich: thank you for your question. no. since no one could appeal that ruling, it could never go up the ladder. the court has no jurisdiction/right to hear cases that are improperly before it.

@nonapologies: thank you for your question. the scrutiny question is like this: what level of scrutiny should we give STATE ACTION that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation? its raised in this case because its the one at the Court, but if the Court thinks that antigay discrimination gets heightened scrutiny, heightened scrutiny is applied to every case of antigay discrimination by the state. this is true for any state action that discriminates on the basis of race.

@zlick: what you may be reading are arguments about the law of federal standing. whatever those outlets, no one can argue that the standing question does not have reasonable arguments on both sides. i know which side i agree with, but i would never say it seems clear. art iii standing cannot be waived in a case like this because it isnt unique.

@michaelandfred: thank you for your question. it will come out as part (or all of) the decision at the end of june.

@thank you for your question. that brief was in the DOMA case. this is the prop 8 case.

@dan: with respect, mr soloways argument on his webpage is just that, an argument. it is a good argument, and an argument that he would make in a brief before a court, hoping to win. it is by no means a settled area of the law. @brynn sent us to a particular interpretation of the law that would have to be argued. nothing in my post is inconsistent with mr. soloways argument, which is on one side of the issue. i hope a court ends up agreeing with him. and, please show respect on this forum.

@bingo: thank you for your comment, but thats not correct. If youre gay and married in, say, New Hampshire, but you live and pay taxes and everything in Kansas, which does not recognize that you are legally married, the federal government need not recognize that youre married, either, when it comes to federal rights. Your state doesnt say youre married and doma allows it not to recognize your out of state gay marriage. The federal government takes those the state tells it is married. Kansas is telling it youre not married. So, its not as open and shut as you would suggest. But thank you for your comment. Email by Ari, Typos by iPhone.

@jeff: thanks for your question. A column on amici is a great idea!! Stay tuned! Email by Ari, Typos by iPhone.