|
Okay, so reading the full decission, this is what I get:
The reasons stated above are not necessarily good reasons, or reasons that the law shouldn't be overturned. But they are reasons other than flat discrimination that the legislature might have defined marriage in 1909 as between a man and a woman. So, the law stands as constitutional because its intent wasn't overtly discriminatory.
Well, then, my question becomes...does intent matter? If it discriminates, it disciminates, whether that was the intention or not, no? In the decission, the justices concede 316 benefits from marriage that are denied to a whole class of citizens, and their only defense of that is, "Well, the legislature didn't MEAN to deny them that 100 years ago."
Still pretty twisted.
__________________
'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.'
-TJ
|