I wish.
The majority opinion -- to which Scalia so vigorously and even derisively objected -- makes it clear that the Court regards DOMA as Unconstitutional, NOT because of any 10th Amendment claim nor any 9th Amendment protection of marriage existing at the time of ratification, but because of the 14th Amendment. Effectively, they hold that DOMA discriminates against homosexuals as a class and that "class" is established by no means other than that they claimed to be denied a "right" that others enjoyed.
This means Reynolds is out the window, and it means that polygamists need merely argue that they are being denied a "right" enjoyed by couples, and that the Court must uphold that claim, since the only thing which defines polygamists AS A CLASS is that they hold marriage between more than two people to be lawful.
It will be amusing to see the liberal majority in this opinion try to slither out of the new 14th Amendment protection extended to homosexuals, while they deny it to bestialists and polygamists.
I have no doubt they will find a way. But Reynolds won't be it.
“they hold that DOMA discriminates against homosexuals”
We have individual and not collective rights. Homosexual men as individuals are not barred from marrying women. This is terrible reasoning. Doesn’t matter what SCOTUS comes down and says about discrimination - there is no ‘right to be married to the partner of your choosing’.
You’re correct here. If you can be discriminated against, I can’t see how the regulations surrounding polygamy or incest can be restricted.
To be clear it was about the State of New York which does what you say not The Federal Gov. New York and any State could do what they wish. Where you live matters in the “United” States of America.