Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticCat
Because they will get muddied sooner or later. I'm thinking of legal reasoning and jurisprudence here, not ethics or philosophy. If a court wants to interpret equal protection rights to mean that a state cannot deny anyone the right to marry a person of the same sex, then the courts have to be prepared to consider a similar claim regarding multiple marriage. (Note that my example =/= polygamy, as I suggest all three parties being married to each other, not just the man to the two women.)
The question I'm asking is on what basis could or would a court say that the state has no interest in prohibiting same-sex marriages but does have an interest in preventing multiple marriages.
|
This is one of the major issues I have about this ruling - the CA Supreme Court has taken quite a broad view on equal protection, and doesn't seem to have thought down the road to the future court cases that will be brought pursuant to the ruling. It has nothing to do with my opinion on the matter, but I question the court's wisdom in speaking in such sweeping terms. If people are going to be in favor of judge-made law, as opposed to leaving things to the legislatures, then the judges have to be very careful in how they frame things.
Also, could everyone stop with the ridiculous criticisms of the Northern/Southern educational systems?
- graduate of the CT educational system who seems to have done ok, and who understands that there are some great, and not so great, schools in both the North and South.
Threaded Mode
