essentialsaltes: (narrow)
[personal profile] essentialsaltes
Sign the Petition to get it on the ballot. Even if all you can do is to print out the PDF, sign it yourself, and mail it to their offices, that's a stamp well spent.

Re: 2012

Date: 2009-11-19 10:10 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] essentialsaltes.livejournal.com
The principle here is simple: it's never been the case under the law that a person could marry another person of the same gender.

It is the case in a few states, and was briefly the case in California. How does this differ from interracial marriage at the time of Loving when it was legal in some states but not others?

Re: 2012

Date: 2009-11-19 10:37 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ian-tiberius.livejournal.com
Loving isn't the issue, the underlying law (in this case, the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment) is. At the time that the Fourteenth Amendment was written, gay marriage had never been legal or recognized. Interracial marriage, however, was legal (or at least not explicitly illegal) in most states.

The fundamental question when it comes to authorial intent is "did the authors consider this?" We can safely assume, I think, that the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment were aware of interracial marriage. We can't assume the same about gay marriage. Therefore it's legitimate to interpret the amendment as implicitly endorsing one, but not the other.

Profile

essentialsaltes: (Default)
essentialsaltes

January 2026

S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jan. 15th, 2026 04:34 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios