Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
forget bilmore's distinction/explanation, though. You asked at teh beginning of the day why teh argument for gay marriage doesn't also support polygamy. I asked how it does, when it's based on equal protection: the gender of the spouse should nto be defined. that rules out polygamy immediately and simply.
|
How does the Equal Protection clause bar defining marriage as between one woman and one man? Explain that to me.
If marriage is defined as between one woman and one man, gays aren't treated differently. A gay person can still enter into a marriage with a person of the opposite sex. They just may choose not to.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
so you say, but there are reasons to bar gay marriage particularly.
|
First of all, gay marriage isn't banned. It is just that the state only confers specific legal rights and obligations on a union between one man and one woman. Under the current law, gays can privately contract with each other to give each other all those rights and obligations (wills, medical power of attorney, property rights, etc.) except for the government benefits and they cannot force their employers to give them spousal benefits. That is the only difference between being married and privately contracting with each other.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Okay, this is the compelling state interest. Or important state interest, or whatever test you want to apply to gender distinctions. You say money. I say, ban all marriages then. Your response? You say breeding is a reason to distinguish the two..
|
No I did not say breeding is a reason to distinguish the two. I said historically that is why marriage was created in the first place.
But you are starting from a flawed premise. Your premis is that gays are being treated differently and then you invoke the Equal Protection clause. That is wrong. Gays are not being treated differently if marriage is defined as between one man and one woman. A gay woman can marry a man under that definition just like a hetero woman may marry a man under that defintion. No one is being treated differently.
It is simply that the gay woman doesn't want to marry a man. But that is her choice. Gays are not being prevented from marrying a member of the opposite sex. So a law that defines marriage as between one man and one woman does not discriminate against gays.
Your analysis presupposes a law that bans gay marriage. That is differnt from defining a marriage as between one man and one woman and allowing one man and one woman to marry. That doesn't discriminate against gays because gays can if they choose get married to a member of the opposite sex.
You are framing the issue wrong for an Equal Protection analysis.
The MA state supreme court did not invoke the US constitution to support its ruling for good reason. The MA state constitution was used, not the US constitution.
