It is already a party matter because only one party (albeit via Conservative home) is thinking about it. Other parties are not likely to follow in this respect which personally I am glad about.

Personally I am against incest but if the Conservative party is keen to explore that option then they have a majority and can do whatever they want - I understand there is a libertarian argument for its legalisation that some on the right support. I don't think other parties should support it though. To me there are significant problems in siblings being allowed to marry and therefore I am against but as I say with a Tory majority they can proceed as they wish so long as they know it is their own crackpot scheme not supported by any other party. I think other parties should pledge to reverse such a step on a non-Conservative government being elected.

Happy Independence Day!

Just a few random thoughts on Kennedy's Obergefell ruling:

1. Did he indirectly chide the liberals on the court for not allowing him to rule on the Prop8 case? (just a supposition on my part but an interesting thought)

2. Is Kennedy's Catholicism actually one of the drivers of much of his jurisprudence (notably references to human dignity) and that's one of the reasons Scalia goes off on the deep end in his dissents because he kknows Kennedy's rulings on gay rights cases are actually inspired by Catholic social justice thinking (if not by direct Catholic teachings on sexuality)?

3. Contained in the ruling are there the disparate elements that make for heightened scrutiny without spelling it out? For instance immutability is in the there as is past experience of discrimination.

4. Baker v Nelson is overruled. Well duh you might say. A ruling for us necessarily in and of itself rules out Baker which has been a major obstacle to marriage litigation for some time. Of course this ruling has not been truly operative for some time because it has clearly been a federal question. Nevertheless rulings against us typically centred on Baker and .... procreation....

5. Procreation just gets roundly kicked out; child rearing is referenced positively so I think adoption is to be covered.

6. Kennedy has now authored 4 very major rulings on gay rights (Romer, Lawrence, Windsor and Obergefell). Although Kennedy is typically the swing vote this area of the law is probably where he will leave his biggest imprint for posterity. All four cases relate to each other (as indeed we have argued); if poetically inclined one might say they are the four petals of a rose in its unfolding over time. I would argue the four cases form a very solid unity and, of course, with Obergefell they get linked to Loving v Virginia and other rights to marriage legislation of the Supreme Court that our side have been pushing.

7. The power in Windsor was not evident immediately. At first it was seen as a weak and confused ruling but as it turned out there were some very powerful segments that a)brought marriage equality to many states and several circuits of appeal and b)brought heightened scrutiny to California (in exegesis Scalia was correct in his interpretation of Windsor and also Lawrence, Roberts much less prescient). Though some have criticised the ruling even welcoming its outcome I think this is a mistake - I think Kennedy knew exactly what he was doing and has done so for quite some time. Therefore I think nothing is in this ruling by accident.

8. There are a lot of Court rulings that have in their own way been very memorable including rulings in Canada, South Africa and rulings in state and federal courts. Kennedy's ruling on one level leaves those lower rulings in place (as opposed to overruling them all!) but Obergefell is, moving forwards, going to be THE gay rights and marriage equality ruling that will be a reference point not just in the US but in other places in the world and for many, many years to come.

Just a few random thoughts for Independence day and my attempt to come to terms with what I think is the bigger picture of the enormity of the win we had in this case!

What a great ruling!

Interesting. I am kind of assuming a ruling from the Supreme Court shows the way, even though technically not binding authority, at least indicate positive rulings are likely to be upheld (similar in a way to SCOTUS' denial of cert. a few months back). So good news overall.

I am truly delighted by this news. I guess a decision was made that SCOTUS is there and what Olson and Boies had to bring, they already brought - have already argued before SCOTUS in Prop 8. Divers litigators have pleaded before Circuits of Appeal and have won. So it is great now to bring it back to Mary Bonauto where it truly did start for us. This is only right and proper and a good development.

Important updates. However who can argue that the week does not belong to Alabama? Yes there are still some forces of opposition around the state's Chief Justice that will take a while to sort out. Yes the picture some of these people give of Alabama is the very worst PR that state can possibly generate of itself. And yet, and yet... I was very struck by a number of things - 1) Where marriage equality started it did so without any notable incident - and much happiness 2) The very positive presence of AL.com in a number of stories, reports, opinions and not to forget the cartoons! 3) The positive role played by religious bodies such as Anglicans and Presbyterians.

From this I take away that on the whole Alabamians are a lot better than the politicians who represent the state, the state is far from being as monolithic as often portrayed and as it may have been in the past and it is a very bad idea for Chief Justices to be directly elected, especially when they have a track record of judicial misconduct.

While I do not minimize the difficulties ahead I think this has been a good week for us - it has gone a lot better than might have been feared in spite of the best efforts of our opponents.

All I can say is I am glad the wiggles are still on!

Florida has also been a model to follow in alabama

I actually think that she did. She enjoined this particular judge but prior to this stated the provisions themselves were unconstitutional because they violated the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as well as others who act in concert who would seek to implement the marriage laws of Alabama which prohibit or fail to recognise same-sex marriage. So I think it's broader than just the one Probate Judge, so I am quietly confident.