Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticCat
Exactly. I'm convinced such lawsuits will be brought. If courts are going to go down this road, they have to anticipate the arguments that will be made based on their decisions. Legislatures have to consider them as well.
|
It seems simple in concept - the Court simply notes that current definitions of marriage (as between a man and a woman) violate equal protection requirements (presuming the CA ERA allows equal protection for homosexuals), and that the legal definition of marriage should include any two people.
Any other corner cases are not a protected class, at least not that I know of, and the Court prevents itself from future action (whether polygamist or simply relying on an alternate definition).
Now, this is clearly quite pie-in-the-sky (and doesn't really remove the problem of recognition between different states), as the Court has seemingly rejected such a "simple" solution to date and it would seem awkward to assume this didn't occur to the Court, but I certainly think it's possible to avoid any sort of snowball effect in such a ruling.
Hybrid Mode
