I can't believe this discussion is necessary.
I suppose it's interesting as far as the legality debate goes, but...seriously. It's 2008. It seems we just don't learn much from our past struggles with human/civil rights.
I completely understand the sentiment that a discussion about this topic can be "behind the times"
Like I said, I'm not really interested in a debate about homosexuality, but I do have to say that the reason I have a problem with legalized gay marriage is that I believe all tax benefits associated with marriage should be tied to children. Due to the fact that married people produce the huge majority of children, they are entitled to tax benefits whether they have kids or not. IMO IF the government is going to continue this blanket tax policy, it should not apply to those who are obviously unable to produce offspring.
Adoptions should also carry specific tax benefits.
I don't think there is anything old fashioned about my opinions.
It seems to me like the Supreme Court did in fact have the authority to make this decision, but it bothers me because I believe most judges would not be able to separate their personal feelings about homosexuality from the law.
I'm sure someone has already addressed this but....CA's decision to apply strict scrutiny seems right...
discrete and insular class (carolene products footnote 4).... overinclusive/underinclusive etc. etc. (romer v.evans)
Even under rational basis, marriage discrimination is hard to justify (goodridge v. dep't of public health). The problem is that marriage discrimination is 'so woefully' overinclusive and underinclusive that it casts doubt upon the asserted state interest.
ex- there's nothing preventing 80 year old women nor infertile men from marrying so a state's claim that a discriminatory marriage policy furthers the interest of procreation is dubious.