Just what is the constitutional provision that forbids such purported discrimination? Just curious.
RE: Just what is the constitutional provision that forbids such purported discrimination? Just curious.
_______________________________
These judges inevitably cite the Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction “the equal protection of the laws”.
So, if heterosexuals can marry, denying homosexuals the right to marry violates Equal Protection.
I am not supporting the decision at all, just answering your question.
It is Section 1 of the Fourteenth amendment upon which the Courts primarily rely. They are ruling that equal protection of the laws is violated if a law is prohibiting them to get married to members of the same sex where it permits heterosexual couples to marry. Even more specifically is the application of laws “differently” to heterosexual couples.
It is the exact same reasoning used by the Courts in ruling that the anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional. They are ruling that interracial marriage is no different than same sex marriage.
Again, let me be clear ... I am not at all supporting the decision (I don’t) I’m just, as an attorney who argued many Constitutional issues, answering your question.
The ruling (http://coop.pamd.uscourts.gov/13-1861.pdf) says there is a fundamental right to marry from Planned Barrenhood v Casey, and 'the promotion of procreation, child-rearing and the well-being of children' are not '“important” state interests'.
And it has some of the most blatant soapboxing I've ever seen in a ruling. The judge must be planning to run for legislative office - or retire to a cushy advisory position with a left-wing 'think' tank.