It’s a noble cause, but a flawed strategy. Victory is unlikely, but even if achieved it will be quickly squelched by legislation redefining personhood as belonging only to human beings.

That’s one of the problems universal marriage proponents have had: some courts have said gay couples have a right to marry, but many legislatures, including most notably the U.S. Congress via the Defense of Marriage Act, have simply legislated a definition of marriage that explicitly excludes those deemed unworthy of the right.

Luckily, DOMA was ruled unconstitutional this year (I’m ashamed to say I apparently failed to blog about the June 2013 decision…). But it was the culmination of a long battle for the plaintiff and an even longer one for opponents of the ludicrous insult to the constitution that was DOMA.

In short, it’ll be a long time before the law purports to give a damn about how depressed a chimp in a trailer park feels. And that’s a damn shame.

Larry Neumeister, for AP:

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued its 2-to-1 ruling only weeks after hearing arguments on a lower court judge’s findings that the 1996 [“Defense of Marriage Act”] was unconstitutional.

This is good news. The holding was based on the intermediate scrutiny constitutional standard and declared DOMA violative of Equal Protection.

The dissent in the 2-1 decision came from Judge Chester Straub, who said “courts should not intervene where there is a robust political debate because doing so poisons the political well, imposing a destructive anti-majoritarian constitutional ruling on a vigorous debate.”

It is the duty of a court to intervene where legislation violates constitutional protections, and that is exactly what DOMA does with regard to same-sex marriage.

There is no valid argument to the contrary.

If the Supreme Court fails to strike this law down when it comes to them some time in the next year, and fails to confirm that our Constitution disallows discrimination with regard to who citizens love solely on the basis of a majoritarian religious belief, it will be the darkest legal day in my lifetime thus far.

Justice Ginsburg isn’t allowed to say whether or not she would find equal protection arguments against the “Defense of Marriage” Act¹ persuasive.

But she’s allowed to smile.