Probably a topic for another thread, but I wonder what this means for the SSM bans in the various states which have been overturned by federal courts. From another article:
In a 6-2 ruling on Tuesday, the justices said that a lower federal court was wrong to set aside the change as discriminatory. The Supreme Court ruled that Michigan voters had the right to change their state constitution to bar public colleges and universities from using race as a factor in admissions.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, suggested that right extends even beyond college policies.
"There is no authority in the federal constitution or in the [courts'] precedents for the judiciary to set aside Michigan laws that commit to the voters the determination whether racial preferences may be considered in governmental decisions, in particular with respect to school admissions," he wrote.
Could the bolded text above just as easily say "There is no authority in the federal constitution or in the [courts'] precedents for the judiciary to set aside Michigan laws that commit to the voters the determination whether
sexual preferences may be considered in governmental decisions, in particular with respect to
marriage"?
