- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 64,698
- Reaction score
- 27,886
- Location
- Rolesville, NC
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
It's an interesting idea, but Zablocki is pretty tangential to marriage cases, as opposed to Loving and Griswold, which protected marriage and marital privacy with strict scrutiny, and Lawrence, which eschews the more common forms of scrutiny, but most resembles strict.
Either way, I think the big thing that will be necessary to really protect SSM is for it to be afforded the same level of constitutional protections that heterosexual marriage enjoys. Rational basis simply won't cut it, and I think that will be the real moment when the debate comes to an end.
I don't think there is a problem with rational basis covering it because there simply isn't a rational reason that restrictions on marriage based on sex/gender further any state interest at all, anywhere.