(June 10, 2015 at 5:15 pm)Anima Wrote: However, I do not see how the second sentence is clear indication of invidious discrimination. It is a clear statement that marriage shall be recognized as being defined by the first sentence and no proxy of marriage shall be recognized in the state of Ohio for any couple be they hetero, homo, or otherwise.
Although this sentence would necessarily include heterosexuals as you pointed out, heterosexuals have the option of marriage denied to homosexuals in the first sentence. The express purpose of the second is to deny homosexuals the state conferred legal benefits and standing attending the qualities, significance, and effects of marriage. I could accept that the design of marriage would dovetail nicely with the procreative centric state interest argument, but the other three highlighted cut against the Respondent argument that the state recognition of marriage is in no way dignity bestowing. I don't have a crystal ball, but I have to imagine this is where the Respondents lost Kennedy.
Roberts vote is a bit trickier to assess. If I remember correctly, during the procreative centric discussion there was a tacit admission that the Respondents considered adoptive relationships inferior to biological relationships. Roberts is an adoptive parent. There's no way of knowing what significance Roberts will give this.
