He framed his argument with reference to states' "historic and essential authority to define the marital relation."īut it doesn't take too much creativity to reframe his opinion to challenge state bans on same-sex marriage, said Jon Davidson, legal director of the gay rights group Lambda Legal. Windsor, Kennedy said the provision denying federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples relegates those marriages to second-class status, and "it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples." Five months later, language from his opinion showed up in the second paragraph of a state court ruling that made Massachusetts the first state to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry. He insisted in June 2003 that his opinion overturning state sodomy laws had nothing to do with governments' recognition of same-sex marriage. In the fight over gay marriage, Kennedy's words also figured in an earlier example. Much the same approach was used decades ago by civil rights lawyers fighting official discrimination one decision becomes a steppingstone to the next. It's a predictable next step in a long-term, incremental legal strategy that is being used at both the state and federal levels, and in state legislatures and executive mansions as well as the courts, to build public and official acceptance of gay marriage. WASHINGTON (AP) ? When the Supreme Court struck down part of an anti-gay marriage law, Justice Anthony Kennedy took pains in his majority opinion to say the ruling applied only to legally married same-sex couples seeking benefits from the federal government.īut judges and lawyers representing same-sex couples are already using Kennedy's language and reasoning in other cases about the right to marry.