CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRAINT: Mark Barton replies to Matt Taylor

Matt Taylor: Mark is really talking about the legislature's motive, personal or political reasons for supporting a bill, rather than their intent, how they meant for the law to be interpreted in specific cases. The legislature does not intend for civil unions to be treated unequally in any case at all, since they have made it legally equivalent to marriage in all but name.

Mark B.: But Matt just finished arguing that an explicit statement of prejudice would have been constitutionally objectionable. How can that be if he meant, as I assume from the context, that the slap was an add-on to a law that established civil unions as strictly parallel to marriage? If an explicit attempt to lower the prestige of civil unions without changing the substance is actionable, so surely is a thinly disguised intent to lower them without changing the substance.

Matt Taylor: It's also questionable whether the civil union proposal is just a cover for prejudice.

Mark B.: I allow that opinions may differ, but the only alternative possibility I can see is that it's just terminological variation for precision's sake, and for me that just doesn't pass the giggle test.

Matt Taylor: The recently proposed MA constitutional amendment also includes a civil union provision, thanks mostly to the efforts of left-leaning, pro-gay legislators. There certainly are people, including some MA legislators, who would like to deprive gays and lesbians of prestige, legal recognition and just about everything else, but those people do not support civil union.

Mark B.: They do if, through strategic voting by the left-leaning, pro-gay legislators, all the more punitive options have been taken off the table. There is a near majority of MA legislators who would like to withhold all recognition. That's been the whole talk of the last few weeks. There is a near majority that would like to give full recognition. There is a group in the middle that wants to do something (or to be seen to be doing something), but is content to withhold prestige. Is the glass half full or half empty? There's a minority in favour of really
vindictive prejudice, but still a majority in favour of some sort of prejudice.
posted by Eve at 11:27 AM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home