Question: A policy in the United States denied couples in same-sex relationships the same rights and privileges afforded different-sex couples was deemed unconstitutional in a landmark civil rights case in which the majority opinion wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity.", Who was it that wrote this?
Context: Baker v. Vermont, 744 A.2d 864 (Vt. 1999), was a lawsuit decided by Vermont Supreme Court on December 20, 1999.  It was one of the first judicial affirmations of the right of same-sex couples to treatment equivalent to that afforded different-sex couples.  The decision held that the state's prohibition on same-sex marriage denied rights granted by the Vermont Constitution.  The court ordered the Vermont legislature to either allow same-sex marriages or implement an alternative legal mechanism according similar rights to same-sex couples. Same-sex marriage became legally recognized statewide in New Mexico through a ruling by the New Mexico Supreme Court on December 19, 2013, requiring all county clerks to issue marriage licenses to qualified couples seeking marriage regardless of gender.  Until then, same-sex couples could only obtain marriage licenses in certain counties of the state.  Eight of 33 counties, covering 58% of the state's population, had begun issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in August and September 2013.  New Mexico's marriage statute is not specific as to gender.  It is the only state lacking a state statute or constitutional provision explicitly addressing same-sex marriage.  Lacking a state law or judicial ruling concerning same-sex marriage prior to December 19, 2013, policy for the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples was determined at the county level at the discretion of local issuing authorities.  That is, some counties recognized same-sex marriage and issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples, while others did not.  Despite the ruling by the New Mexico Supreme Court allowing same-sex marriages in the state, some of New Mexico's Native American tribes (most notably the Navajo Nation) continue to prohibit same-sex marriages within their jurisdictions and do not recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in the U.S. state of Indiana since October 6, 2014.  The state had previously restricted marriage to male-female couples by statute in 1986.  By legislation passed in 1997, it denied recognition to same-sex relationships established in other jurisdictions.  A lawsuit challenging the state's refusal to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples, "Baskin v. Bogan", won a favorable ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on June 25, 2014.  Until the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit granted an emergency stay of the district court's ruling on June 27, most Indiana counties issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling in "Baskin" on September 4.  A ruling in "Bowling v. Pence" stated that the state must recognize same-sex marriages performed out-of-state and the decision was stayed until the Circuit ruled on the merits in similar cases.  It also stated that the ruling would remain stayed if the circuit court stayed its decision in the related cases. Legal recognition of same-sex unions in Australia takes a variety of forms depending on the jurisdiction.  Under Australian federal law, same-sex couples can be recognised as "de facto" relationships, but have no access to marriage, civil unions or other federal relationship registration.  Australian states and territories are entitled to create their own laws with respect to same-sex relationship registers and same-sex partnership schemes, with most offering civil unions or other forms of domestic partnership to same-sex couples.  Same-sex couples are prevented from marrying by amendments to the "Marriage Act 1961", passed in 2004 by the Howard Government and Mark Latham-led Australian Labor Party.  Additionally, same-sex couples who are married in countries where same-sex marriage is legal cannot divorce within Australia when they come back due to the same-sex marriage ban. Lewis v. Harris, 188 N.J. 415; 908 A.2d 196 (N.J. 2006), is a New Jersey Supreme Court case that held that the state's marriage laws violated the rights of same-sex couples to equal protection of the law under the state constitution.  Four of the seven justices ruled that the legislature must, within six months, either amend marriage laws or create civil unions.  In response, the legislature created the status of civil unions for same-sex couples. The history of same-sex marriage in the United States dates from the early 1970s, when the first lawsuits seeking legal recognition of same-sex relationships brought the question of civil marriage rights and benefits for same-sex couples to public attention though they proved unsuccessful.The subject became increasingly prominent in U.S. politics following the 1993 Hawaii Supreme Court decision in "Baehr v. Lewin" that suggested the possibility that the state's prohibition might be unconstitutional.  That decision was met by actions at both the federal and state level to restrict marriage to male-female couples, notably the enactment at the federal level of the Defense of Marriage Act. United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. ___ (2013) (Docket No.  12-307 ), is a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.  In the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity." Same-sex immigration policy in the United States denied couples in same-sex relationships the same rights and privileges afforded different-sex couples based on several court decisions and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional in "United States v. Windsor" on June 26, 2013. Marriage in England and Wales is legally recognised in the forms of both civil, and religious marriage for opposite sex couples only, and same sex marriage in register offices or an approved venue.  Same-sex marriages cannot be solemnised in the Church of England, due to the church's doctrine and views on marriage.  Canon laws forbid such from taking place.  Marriage laws in England and Wales have historically evolved separately from marriage laws in other jurisdictions in the United Kingdom.  There is a distinction between religious marriages, conducted by an authorised religious celebrant, civil marriages, conducted by a state registrar and same sex marriages, also conducted by a state registrar.  The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 (c. 30) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which legalised same-sex marriage in England and Wales.  The legal minimum age to enter into a marriage in England and Wales is sixteen years, although this requires parental consent if a participant is under eighteen.  Certain relatives are not allowed to marry.  For foreign nationals, there are also residency conditions that have to be met before people can be married.  Same-sex marriage was introduced under the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act in March 2014.  Prior to this, civil partnerships had been made available to same-sex couples in the United Kingdom in 2005, granting rights and responsibilities virtually identical to civil marriage.  Civil partnerships remain to be available to only same-sex couples, despite a call by Peter Tatchell for there to be an equal status regarding such civil unions.  The Isle of Man is the only part of the British Isles where civil partnership are available to all irrespective of gender. Croatia recognizes life partnerships for same-sex couples through the "Life Partnership Act", making same-sex couples equal to married couples in everything except adoption.  However, the Act provides couples with an institution similar to stepchild adoption called partner-guardianship.  The Act also recognizes and defines unregistered same-sex relationships as informal life partners, thus making them equal to registered life partnerships after they have been cohabiting for a minimum of 3 years.  Croatia first recognized same-sex couples in 2003 through a law on unregistered same-sex unions which was replaced by the "Life Partnership Act".  The Croatian Parliament passed the new law on 15 July 2014, taking effect in two stages (5 August 2014 and 1 September 2014).  Since the 2013 referendum, the Constitution of Croatia limits marriage to opposite-sex couples.
Answer: Justice Anthony Kennedy