Quote:
Originally Posted by AGDee
Does anybody have any reason OTHER THAN RELIGION to deny people their ability to legally vow their unending love to each other?
|
That's why I like Massachusetts' approach in that the prohibition on marriage flunks the rational basis test.
California's SC came off as being extremely activist in its decision. Not only did they say that sexual orientation discrimination was the same as race in the requirement that such classifications be subject to strict scrutiny (which would have been enough), they also said that the right to marry someone regardless of gender was a fundamental liberty interest, therefore protected by the 14th Amendment substantive due process doctrine.
I think the court has usurped the legislature here. I read most of the opinion (it's 170-something pages). While I don't really see why states are in the business of marriage in the first place, I do think these sorts of things ought to be left up to the legislative process, not the whims of four justices.