Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
one cannot legally distinguish between who can get married based upon the two genitals the couple may have. Such a distinction would violate equal protection.
How then can one distinguish between who can get married based upon the present marital status of the two.
|
EP requires protected class status. We don't extend EP arguments to "this law is unfair to me, because I am a rapist, and rapists are treated unequally to others under the anti-rape laws."* I don't think marital status, while partially protected, is treated the same way as race or gender or rapistism. When this case hits the S.Ct., it will be sui generis, even though both sides will be addressing
Lawrence in their briefs. Just a timely reminder:
Lawrence wasn't decided on EP grounds, so it's hard to say the S.Ct. has yet extended EP arguments to same gender couples at all. The people saying EP justifies same-sex marriage aren't yet on the U.S. S.Ct.
The only people thinking that the
Lawrence rationale will necessarily and eventually extend to polygamy and incest are (1) overly rational lawyers who incorrectly assume that the court's privacy jurisprudence is based on internal inconsistency, rather than "the state of _____ crossed a line here," or (2) closeted or outed religious zealots who think same-sex contact is tantamount to incest. A study of the S.Ct.'s privacy jurisprudence shows that it considers such consistency to be the hobgoblin of small minds.
*Just an example. In your state, MMV.
