Frank Apisa wrote:You make a good point here, Joe.
Despite my best efforts, sometimes this happens.
Frank Apisa wrote:Specifically -- since the issue falls into the category of a civic right...
...can a case be made that limiting it arbitrarily to ONLY one man and one woman...
...is, in some legally significant way, like limiting it ONLY to white people (as an example)?
I believe this is the approach being taken in the courts right now. Since the 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection of the laws (so the argument goes), it is discriminatory to limit this particular civic right -- and its attendant benefits -- to only a certain class of persons (the Vermont case, though, was based on a similar provision in the Vermont constitution, not on the 14th Amendment -- not sure what the rationale was in New Jersey or Massachusetts).
And the reason that
some people want a constitutional amendment (ignoring, for the moment, the lunatic right-wing fundie fringe) is not to prohibit same-sex marriages entirely, but to allow states to refuse recognition of those marriages that are performed in other states. For instance, right now if someone gets married in State A, the "comity clause" of the constitution requires State B to recognize the legality of that marriage. Now, if it became legal for homosexuals to get married in State A, the fear is that State B -- which is violently opposed to homosexual marriages -- would have to recognize that union. So one version of the anti-gay marriage amendment would simply create a loophole in the comity clause that would allow states to refuse recognition of homosexual unions from other states.
Why would heterosexual marriage become illegal? The idea is that they BOTH would be legal.
