Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Saying that a state may offer civil unions and saying that a state may offer civil unions only if passed by the state's legislature, without judicial compulsion, are two different things. If you're Bork, or a judicial consservative when that meant nott mean striking legislationdown under the takings clause or 11th amendment, there's an important difference.
|
I guess I'm back with AG in thinking that the reference to "state law" in the second sentence forbids what you think state legislatures could do.
Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
Because the first sentence just defines "marriage." The second sentence (1) opens the door for the states to pass civil union type legislation or constitutional amendments, so long as they are not called "marriage" and (2) says (or is intended to say) that unless their is specific legislation or amendment, a court cannot be required to say that general marriage statutes apply to couples that are not comprised of 1 man/1 woman.
|
Your (1) is redundant of the first sentence. If marriage is x, y can't be marriage. Your (2) is hard to square with the reference to "state law," as I said above. The amendment doesn't say "specific state constituton or law," it says "state law." And it's more than a little odd to say that a state constitution's guarantee of equal protection cannot require civil unions, but the state legislature can.
