Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticCat
So, for gay marriage, the argument goes like this: the state issues marriage licenses and recognizes the marriages of heterosexual couples. The state does not have a sufficiently important interest in limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. Because the state does not have a sufficiently important reason for so doing, the equal protection provision of the state constitution forbids the state from limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples and requires the state to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples.
If a state court agrees with that argument, it is not a long trip to the next lawsuit: the state issues marriage licenses and recognizes the marriages of two people. The state does not have a sufficiently important interest in limiting marriage to only couples. Because the state does not have a sufficiently important reason for so doing, the equal protection provision of the state constitution forbids the state from limiting marriage to couples and requires the state to recognize marriages between three (or more) people.
The last argument might not win. But I have no doubt it will be brought in a court somewhere.
|
Meh, it seems like the argument is a non-starter from any aspect other than the technical (i.e. "the only one that matters" but hey - message board!) . . . I'd run it something like this:
The state's interest in limiting marriage to two people can be proven "sufficiently important" for any number of qualifying reasons, including the difficulty of parsing out or setting up multi-party contracts for the layperson, and the amount of work it would take to integrate such contracts (or the resultant work for public administration in dealing with the aftermath - for instance, do you have a primary wife and a secondary for legal purposes, like estates? If so, that's not really one "communal" marriage, it's essentially two separate, and precedent shows that the state has an interest in not allowing two separate marriages where the secondary parties are not interactive). This is in addition to the historical precedent for polygamy's connection with detrimental acts (such as underage marriage or forced marriages). The change of an institution to support the desires of a non-protected class of people would require support through an inordinate amount of work, oversight and negative historical precedent - and the end result likely would violate already-upheld rules.
Probably enough of a hijack, but I think one could adequately reverse "no compelling reason to do so" to meet a "sufficiently important" burden . . .