Well, standing is a critical aspect of the subject matter jurisdiction of federal courts–it’s not just a technical rule, it’s actually enshrined in the Constitution itself (the cases and controversies clause). Federal courts may not take a case just because someone doesn’t like a law or an judicial decision. There needs to be a real injury.

If these pro-Prop8 fools had been allowed to go forward with their case, then the courts would be flooded with religious lunatics of every stripe insisting that they are “injured” by this or that law, just because it doesn’t chime with their religious beliefs. That can’t happen. You need to be able to show that you are REALLY injured. Not just that you don’t like it.

So the Prop 8 case was correctly decided. There were actually similar procedural problems with the DOMA case as well–but that case had a much more complex procedural posture, with parts of the government wanting the case to go forward, parts of it not, and something like a colorable “injury” to the government since it was being ordered to pay the plaintiff back for the estate taxes she paid.

I don’t think it’s right to say that the court “punted” on the prop 8 case. They simply decided it correctly. If they had permitted it to go forward, it would have opened a door that really ought to stay permanently shut.

agreed on that one 100% but i think the court knows, as do you and I that this question will be back….at some point they will have to rule on the constitutionality of a ban on same sex marriage. In an odd way though this is probably good, while it does seem to take them a long time to finally get a ruling right, taking that time seems to prevent public opinion from swaying the court into a possibly wrong decision.

Ruling that those who brought the suit to the SCOTUS did not have standing to do so was a path of least resistance. It gave the justices an easy out that still effectively blocked Prop 8 without setting new precedent.

The SCOTUS didn’t rule on the constitutional muster of Prop 8, but a lower Federal court has, and the SCOTUS refused to hear the case. Had they wished to rule on the issue they could have found a way to do so. The fact that they did not pretty much says they are in agreement with the prior ruling, or at least not so adamantly opposed to set precedent in order to hear the case.

yes i know that I was really more referencing DOMA
I think eventually all such laws against gay marriage will be stricken….Obama is right on this one, the government cannot enshrine discrimination in a law.

And yes, gay people should have just as much right to be as miserable as anyone else.