|
I've started reading the decision. It looks like, in the early reading that the decision is essentially that since the substantive traits of marriage are granted to homosexuals through domestic partnerships, that there is an impingement on equality of dignity in giving them a different name than marriage.
I wonder if this means that the issue could be resolved by getting rid of domestic partnerships or defining them to also exclude homosexuals (not advocating that, just curious if it would eliminate the constitutional issue
this decision settles).
|