Coverage of the Court continues to focus on the fallout from its recent decisions in United States v. Windsor (striking down a provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional) and Hollingsworth v. Perry (holding that the proponents of California’s ban on same-sex marriage lacked standing to defend it on appeal). Nina Totenberg of NPR reports on Monday’s ruling by a federal district court that relied on Windsor to award survivor’s benefits from a law firm’s profit-sharing plan to the widow of a same-sex marriage. And at the American Constitution Society’s blog, Steve Sanders discusses a district court ruling last week that also relied on Windsor in ordering Ohio to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in Maryland. Sanders agrees that the decision was a “just and humane outcome,” but he criticizes the opinion for “seem[ing] conclusory and lacking in rigor.” And at JURIST, Elizabeth Wydra argues that the state-by-state strategy adopted by some marriage equality advocates after the Court’s ruling in Perry “is not what the Constitution demands” as it forgets “the true promise of the Constitution’s guarantee of equality”
Briefly:
[Disclosure: Tejinder Singh of the law firm Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, was among the counsel on an amicus brief filed by international human rights advocates in support of the respondents in Hollingsworth v. Perry; The firm’s Kevin Russell was among the counsel on an amicus brief filed by former senators in support of Edith Windsor in United States v. Windsor.]
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY