Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't understand your reasoning, so let me try another approach. If we stopped after the first sentence, we leave open the possibility that states will construe equal protection clauses as requiring the incidents of marriage to be applied to same sex couples, absent a specific state statute or constitutional amendment expressly setting out the will of the people as to those incidents of marriage. This is what happend in MA, if I understand it correctly. So my reading of the second sentece (putting aside the technical deficiencies Fringey has pointed out) is that general marriage statutes are not required to be construed, under equal protection, to afford the incidents of marriage to same sex couples. However, it does not prohibit the state from passing legislation or amendment specifically giving those rights independent from the general marriage statutes.
|
If so, it's an odd view of process that says that the Equal Protection guarantee in a state constitution cannot be applied to permit civil unions, but a legislative enactment in that state can. It's anti-states rights on a whole new level.
I still think you guys are reading the reference to "state law" in that second sentence too narrowly. Sidd put it well. It doesn't say that a state legislature can only create civil unions if it does so very, very explicitly.
