I want things easier, I want the definition to pertain to persons, as the Constitution does twenty two different times, never defining the gender of those persons.
The framers of the Massachusetts Constitution also made it illegal to create a second-class citizen, which denying privileges based on societal disapproval of the sexual preferences of a part of the citizenry does.
No more so than denying rights based on societal disapproval of the culinary preferences of a part of the citizenry does.
Tell me what you think of the German man who ate his lover on camera with his lover's permission?
Shalom.
We conclude that the marriage ban does not meet the rational basis test for either due process or equal protection. -Chief Justice Marshall
Applying that deferential [rational basis] test in the manner it is customarily applied, the exclusion of gay and lesbian couples from the institution of civil marriage passes constitutional muster. -Justices Sosman, Spina, Cordy
This case is not about government intrusions into matters of personal liberty. It is not about the rights of same-sex couples to choose to live together, or to be intimate with each other, or to adopt and raise children together. It is about whether the State must endorse and support their choices by changing the institution of civil marriage to make its benefits, obligations, and responsibilities applicable to them. While the courageous efforts of many have resulted in increased dignity, rights, and respect for gay and lesbian members of our community, the issue presented here is a profound one, deeply rooted in social policy, that must, for now, be the subject of legislative not judicial action. -Justices Cordy, Spina, Sosman
Which opinions do you find show more judicial restraint?