So a finding that sexual orientation is a quasi-suspect, which implies heightened/intermediate scrutiny, would be a step forward. I'm not complaining about the outcome but rather the reasoning, or rather lack thereof. The decision conflates the suspect/quasi-suspect analysis and then picks the later seemingly at random.
Yeah, this makes sense. I've never actually understood why sexual orientation doesn't pass the standards for strict scrutiny. Do the Justices get hung up on the immutability criterion?
Ah, this is an aspect I was not aware of. So if a fundamental right is being restricted, then strict scrutiny is necessary? Definitely strange that it wasn't applied then.
I wonder if it's a matter of trying to shift the jurisprudence as little as possible, to increase the decision's chances of standing up on appeal. I recall a big deal being made of one gay rights case (possibly Prop 8?) being decided on rational basis grounds, the implication being, "look, this is not allowed even using just a rational basis analysis, so you don't even need to accept that a higher level of scrutiny is necessary to reach this decision." Sort of an attempt to decide the case on the narrowest grounds possible. Would that make sense?