However, our legal system has defined marriage as a right and has denied me the right to marry a woman while extending that right to a man. So regardless of how retarded I think the institution of marriage is personally, it's the legal equality that I am concerned with.
In other words, the other judges got it wrong. Assuming of course that marriage belong without presumption or cost of privilege to all human beings under such jurisdiction.
So, the conservative supremes will be itching to overturn, and it leaves only Kennedy as the swing vote. He might, or he might not construe fundamental. If it is deemed to be not a fundamental right, then the 14th doesn't apply. States are free to legislate their own desitiny, or in the instant case, by way of ballot initiative.
Last edited by Hicup; 08-05-10 at 02:22 PM. Reason: To add
“When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
“Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher
Hey look, I think the govt should be out of the marriage racket altogether. But until they ARE out of the marriage racket, they need to extend the right equally.Taylor versus Safely (1987): "the decision to marry is a fundamental right" and "marriage is an experssion of emotional support and public committment."
Zablocki versus Redhail (1978): "The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individauls."
Clevland Board of Edcuation versus LaFleur (1974): "This court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the libertieis protected buy the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
Loving versus Virginia (1967): The "freedom to marry has long been recongized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursut of happiness by free men."