This is interesting because Roberts is thought to be a possible sixth vote against DOMA because of his interest in federalism. It may be that Tauro had him in mind in evoking the Tenth Amendment. It may also be that Boudin had Roberts in mind and wanted to evoke federalism without putting Roberts on the spot, especially with the idea that federalism (which even Alito and Scalia are supposed to espouse) means that DOMA must be striken.

I think it is great that you write a letter. I really do.

But before you do, please do a little bit of research on the subject. And please check in with some activists whose opinions you respect.

Until fairly recently it was the term that the gay community used. It wasn’t intended to say that gay people choose to be gay. And as we came to see that implication, we moved to orientation.

But not everyone got that memo. Within the last month I read a passionate appeal in a newspaper for people to stand up against bigotry and let people marry whomever they love no matter their sexual preference. Sure it wasn’t the best word choice, but their heart was so with us I couldn’t be upset.

(A similar thing I still hear is, “people should be able to marry who they choose to love” which also really means well but carries baggage.)

My take on this is that Judge Boudin thought he was using the appropriate and socially accepted term. In fact, I think he would be surprised that amidst this ruling which is so valuable to our community and which so thoroughly refutes what our detractors claim, that someone is upset by the term he used.

But don’t take my word for it, ask around. And if what I said is echoed by others you respect, perhaps it would be more appropriate to write a letter of thanks for this judge ruling for equality. And perhaps as a minor “by the way” you could let him know that “sexual orientation” is preferred over “sexual preference”.

But really I think that appreciation for the ruling should far outweigh any possible lack in etiquette.

I kinda disagree with you about the word wives. In fact in Massachusetts, which is what and where this court case is about, legally they are wives. Why is he diminishing the women by not recognizing their marriage and instead only calling it by partner?

I am not going to do a mean letter, but rather a persuasive one, but this is the first ruling I have read where sexual minorities are referred to as having a “preference”

I doubt that he did it thoughtlessly, but if it was, by the time he is done reading my letter he will know that it was a thoughtless way to refer to a person’s sexual orientation. And if it was done purposefully he will know that I an all sexual minorities reject that. Again I’ll be nice but I am going to write a letter. I always try and do something when I see a wrong.

The standard of scrutiny they used isn’t all that new; it’s been around since Moreno in the early seventies. It’s commonly called “rational basis with teeth”. It’s the same standard used in Romer and officially used in Lawrence (some argue that the SCOTUS actually applied intermediate scrutiny in the latter while pretending not to).

I think you may possibly be finding insult where none is intended. Judge Boudin didn’t say “wives” because DOMA stops them from being wives and forces them to be just “partners”.

His point is that DOMA may indeed prevent them from being wives but it doesn’t stop them from raising children together. And therefore the idea that stopping them from being wives somehow is necessary because of children has no logical basis.

This guy wrote a compelling ruling which sided with us in very strong terms. And this section, in particular, is a complete slap-down of NOM’s entire media campaign. I really don’t think that he’s anti-gay; if so, he would have had plenty of excuses to rule against us.

(I agree that “preference” is a term that should be dropped. But I still hear it from our allies and even from some gay people. That a 73 year old straight man uses it probably isn’t an indication of deliberate insult.)

Why didn’t he say wives? By both wives. They are married, that is what the case is about.

Also in another section of the opinion he does NOT say sexual ORIENTATION he says Sexual PREFERENCE. By deliberately using the word “preference” he diminishes homosexuality as merely a “choice” I did not like that at all.