- Joined
- May 31, 2005
- Messages
- 2,963
- Reaction score
- 855
- Location
- Milwaukee, WI
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
"The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter."
The last sentence there is only stating the fact that this case does not involve same-sex marriage directly (as you pointed out). It does not say anywhere in it that same-sex marriage cannot be done.
The quote I provided, however, does say that marriage is constitutionally protected, without specifying heterosexuals only. ("The Casey decision again confirmed that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage...")
LAWRENCE V. TEXAS
That's from the majority. They're 1) stating that this case doesn't speak to the issue of marriage, and 2) lumping marriage in with a whole bunch of other failed arguments.
O'Connor's concurrence is the only one that even suggested that marriage might have a shot at success, and approached it via the EP clause. I would consider the fact that nobody else signed onto that to be the most relevant consideration.
This is in O'Connor's concurrence:
"That this law as applied to private, consensual conduct is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause does not mean that other laws distinguishing between heterosexuals and homosexuals would similarly fail under rational basis review. Texas cannot assert any legitimate state interest here, such as national security or preserving the traditional institution of marriage. Unlike the moral disapproval of same-sex relations–the asserted state interest in this case–other reasons exist to promote the institution of marriage beyond mere moral disapproval of an excluded group."
LAWRENCE V. TEXAS
She obviously was making a distinction between this case and same-sex marriage and believed the State had a legitimate basis for preserving the traditional definition of marriage. That was not signed on by the rest of the majority. The way I see it, this is the most telling part of the ruling in relation to what may happen in a same-sex marriage case brought before this court.
If the other 5 justices agreed with O'Connor's assertion that the State had an interest in preserving traditional marriage, then why didn't they sign onto it?