I'm no lawyer, but seeking judicial relief on equal protection grounds seems illegitimate. To me the issue isn't about gays marrying. Gays have been marrying for centuries, only they've been marrying persons of the opposite gender and usually to keep up appearances.
The state doesn't bar gays from marriage, it simply bars a man from marrying a man and a woman from marrying a woman. The state doesn't ask and doesn't care about the sexual preference or prediliction of marriage license applicants. The state merely cares if in fact the persons applying are 1) of legal age 2) not currently in a state of matrimony with another person 3) not related too closely by blood and 4) that there be a sexual complement in the pair such that one co-applicant is male and the other co-applicant is female. Assuming satisfaction of these conditions, which are equally applied under the law (hence satisfying the demands of the 14th amendment), no person can reasonably claim a violation of rights by the state vis-a-vis the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the law.
Of course, state constitutions are a different story and I'm unaware of all the particulars involved in interpreting the constitution for the commonwealth of Massachusetts. That being said, I think my points on the illegitimacy of arguing unequal protection of the laws would prove an interesting counterweight arguing against judicial activism to establish a "right" to gay "marriage." Not that judicial activist judges would care, but it's worth arguing if only to reject the argument that any rights are being violated in the state setting up the "one male/one female" restriction in granting marriage licenses.
I love it when someone articulates something I've wanted to say, but didn't have the time. The argument isn't whether the government can treat different groups of people differently, but which criteria are applicable and which are not. Otherwise, the state would be forced to abandon commonsense distinctions such as minority vs. adulthood, sane vs. insane, able-bodied and handicapped, etc.
is gay divorce?
I thought "logical end" was a double entendre.
I thought we boycotted double entendres along with blue cheese, goose liver pate and the wines of France...
I'm no lawyer, but seeking judicial relief on equal protection grounds seems illegitimate. To me the issue isn't about gays marrying. Gays have been marrying for centuries, only they've been marrying persons of the opposite gender and usually to keep up appearances.
The state doesn't bar gays from marriage, it simply bars a man from marrying a man and a woman from marrying a woman. The state doesn't ask and doesn't care about the sexual preference or prediliction of marriage license applicants. The state merely cares if in fact the persons applying are 1) of legal age 2) not currently in a state of matrimony with another person 3) not related too closely by blood and 4) that there be a sexual complement in the pair such that one co-applicant is male and the other co-applicant is female. Assuming satisfaction of these conditions, which are equally applied under the law (hence satisfying the demands of the 14th amendment), no person can reasonably claim a violation of rights by the state vis-a-vis the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the law.
Of course, state constitutions are a different story and I'm unaware of all the particulars involved in interpreting the constitution for the commonwealth of Massachusetts. That being said, I think my points on the illegitimacy of arguing unequal protection of the laws would prove an interesting counterweight arguing against judicial activism to establish a "right" to gay "marriage." Not that judicial activist judges would care, but it's worth arguing if only to reject the argument that any rights are being violated in the state setting up the "one male/one female" restriction in granting marriage licenses.
I love it when someone articulates something I've wanted to say, but didn't have the time. The argument isn't whether the government can treat different groups of people differently, but which criteria are applicable and which are not. Otherwise, the state would be forced to abandon commonsense distinctions such as minority vs. adulthood, sane vs. insane, able-bodied and handicapped, etc.
...and who said I had to abandon pate?