CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRAINT: Mark Barton replies to Matt Taylor

Matt Taylor: If the statute had read "we hereby relegate same-sex couples to the dishonorable, inferior status of civil union" or for that matter "the archaic, withering institution of marriage is left to opposite-sex couples" or some such, the court might have grounds to strike it down. But neutrally-worded use of the two terms is not in itself a violation of equality.

Mark B.: Matt should have stuck to insisting that there had to be tangible differences. To concede that an explicit statement of prejudice would be unconstitutional is to concede the whole argument. It's standard to take the intent of the legislature into account in determining what disputed passages mean. The majority found, as if it weren't obvious, that the intent of the legislature was to award a less prestigious name. And as they remind us, the Massachusetts constitution "affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals." Unless there's a compelling state interest, such a slap at the dignity of a group of people is unacceptable, even if they might be magnanimous enough for themselves to overlook it.
posted by Eve at 9:36 PM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home