Equal Protection based on Gender and not Sexual Orientation
Has this approach ever been litigated anywhere in the US?
Consider: Jane is a woman. Susan is a woman. Susan can't marry Jane because Susan is a woman. Were Susan a man, it would be legal. De facto unequal protection under the law, thus unconstitutional, QED.
i hope so because that logic is unsound even on its face. Hetero's don't have to "choose" someone else, ergo we still have still unequal protection. Thanks for the info.
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.