Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Your (1) is redundant of the first sentence. If marriage is x, y can't be marriage. Your (2) is hard to square with the reference to "state law," as I said above. The amendment doesn't say "specific state constituton or law," it says "state law." And it's more than a little odd to say that a state constitution's guarantee of equal protection cannot require civil unions, but the state legislature can.
|
I don't understand your reasoning, so let me try another approach. If we stopped after the first sentence, we leave open the possibility that states will construe equal protection clauses as requiring the incidents of marriage to be applied to same sex couples, absent a specific state statute or constitutional amendment expressly setting out the will of the people as to those incidents of marriage. This is what happend in MA, if I understand it correctly. So my reading of the second sentece (putting aside the technical deficiencies Fringey has pointed out) is that general marriage statutes are not required to be construed, under equal protection, to afford the incidents of marriage to same sex couples. However, it does not prohibit the state from passing legislation or amendment specifically giving those rights independent from the general marriage statutes.
