A Fine Argument for Gay Marriage, but a Flawed Legal Opinion
Ah, but therein lies the difference. In Equal Protection constitutional law regarding the infringement upon rights by the state regarding Incest and Polygamy, a rational (actually, compelling) interest can be identified for the prohibitions of such.
Incest – birth defects and their attendent costs on society;
Polygamy (as historically practiced, not Bill’s family on “Big Love”) – coercion (lack of consent), treating wives as property, and often inbreading (see Incest, above). Although if all plural marriages were like Bill’s, I would consider granting the point; that is, why should I care if consenting adults choose plural marriage without coercion and with no detriment to civil society?
With SSM, the trial record from Prop H8 shows beyond a shaddow of a doubt that the only basis for infringing upon the rights of gays to marry is moral disapproval. Sorry, not compelling – not even rational.
