|
Note that no one here has refuted the illegality of some of the state constitutional amendments, such as Kentucky's, that not only ban recognizing gay marriage, but also ban giving any rights similar to marriage to any unmarried couples. That is where the real problem lies. Gays in Vermont do not complain, by and large, that the "civil union" is different from "marriage," they are content with the two being more-or-less equal, if different in nomenclature. As you may have seen from my previous posts, I think the gay groups went off the mark with their to-may-to, to-mah-to issue, and as far as the constitution is concerned, nomenclature is unimportant so long as substantive rights are guaranteed. And, I even outlined how the Bush/Cheney plan could allow for this.
But, banning the state from giving "similar" rights of marriage to unmarried couples (such as gays) does in fact offend the "equal protection" clause of the Constitution. And, I predict that even our conservative Supreme Court will prove me right on this in due time. Wait and see. And remember that I told you so.
__________________
 
|