BringBackJoeT
06-28-2011, 02:29 PM
This can not be a state issue as there are interstate matters to consider. Let's also not forget the equal protection is a constructional issue. A same sex married couple should be able to move freely to other states much like married couple of opposite sex.
There isn't any chance that the current make-up of the Supreme Court is going to find a sufficient connection between interstate commerce and marriage to make this a federal issue that Congress has the authority to make law on. No chance. In fact, I wonder whether even Breyer or Kagan would buy that argument. (The fact that NY stands to attract additional tourism, as some news stories have suggested, won't be enough). Second, equal protection might be invoked, but the argument would fare only slightly better than the first. If you're being discriminated against under a state law, and you are not alleging discrimination based on race or religious affiliation, the deck is stacked against you. In the Sup. ct. decision that struck down the Texas law that banned homosexual sex, O'Connor wrote a concurring opinion that the Texas law violated the EP clause. She was the only justice who believed that. And with regard to the constitutional right to travel being violated by the denial of same-sex partners to marry, that's kinda weak.
I'd like to see the NY story played out all over the country, but marriage equality ain't going to be delivered by the Supremes.
There isn't any chance that the current make-up of the Supreme Court is going to find a sufficient connection between interstate commerce and marriage to make this a federal issue that Congress has the authority to make law on. No chance. In fact, I wonder whether even Breyer or Kagan would buy that argument. (The fact that NY stands to attract additional tourism, as some news stories have suggested, won't be enough). Second, equal protection might be invoked, but the argument would fare only slightly better than the first. If you're being discriminated against under a state law, and you are not alleging discrimination based on race or religious affiliation, the deck is stacked against you. In the Sup. ct. decision that struck down the Texas law that banned homosexual sex, O'Connor wrote a concurring opinion that the Texas law violated the EP clause. She was the only justice who believed that. And with regard to the constitutional right to travel being violated by the denial of same-sex partners to marry, that's kinda weak.
I'd like to see the NY story played out all over the country, but marriage equality ain't going to be delivered by the Supremes.