Minus the assimilation part, it is pretty exciting .... — Craig J. Rouskey contact(a)craigrouskey.com http://www.craigrouskey.com On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 8:28 AM, Romy Ilano <romy(a)snowyla.com> wrote:

Equal rights, and justice! And a first step toward more to come. --- quotes --- Held: 1. This Court has jurisdiction to consider the merits of the case... 2. DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment... (a) By history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States... (b) By seeking to injure the very class New York seeks to protect, DOMA violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government... http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdf --- end quotes --- Very interesting: "protected class" language. What I find particularly interesting is that this ruling frequently refers to "the class New York seeks to protect" and similar language. The term "protected class," has specific meanings and implications in civil rights law: it refers to a group of persons whose rights are specifically protected by anti-discrimination laws. For example any racial/ethnic minority that has been subjected to discrimination or deliberate disadvantage under the law or public policy, or by threats and coercion having substantially the same effect of denying rights under law (such as by KKK intimidation of black voters). Women are a protected class via laws and court rulings about gender discrimination. Persons with disabilities are a protected class via the ADA and court rulings. Federal law recognizes race, religion, gender, age, and disability as protected classes. State laws in some states extend protected class status to gay, bi, lesbian, and (more rarely) transgender persons. The Court's ruling did not establish LGBT persons as a federal protected class. However what it did, was acknowledge that certain states, New York by name and others by logical inclusion, have established LGBT persons as a protected class. In my (non-lawyer, layperson's) opinion, this wording is important because: a) it recognizes the right of states to establish protected class status for LGBT persons, and, b) in doing so, it sets out the first step on a trail that can be used to establish protected class status for LGBT persons on a federal basis, nationwide. ---- I gotta' scoot off to a work appointment, be back later. I've got a work-stack with deadlines, so I might or might not make it to SR tonight. Laters.... -G. On 13-06-26-Wed 8:28 AM, Romy Ilano wrote: