Law Students

Way to go Connecticut! (10/08)

By Steve Pirates

Well, with less than a month before California voters decide whether to strip marital rights from some people while confirming them for others, Connecticut?s Supreme Court has held that the civil union laws in Connecticut do not go far enough in preserving equality for homosexuals.

Now, while I applaud the result (marriage regardless of gender), I still think that they are framing the question incorrectly.

There is no and should be no right to homosexual marriage, just like there should be no right to heterosexual marriage. Rather, the question should be one of gender-blindness. Consider Loving v. Virginia, the laws against miscegination aren?t really that discriminatory, they affected all races. Whites could only marry whites, and blacks could only marry blacks. They couldn?t cross. The Court correctly held that race cannot be validly considered. The ?gay marriage? issues really should be framed in the same way. Right now, men can marry women and women can marry men, but the can?t marry their own gender. Much in the same way as the Supreme Court has said that race cannot be part of a marriage formulation, I argue that it is as simple as saying gender cannot be part of the marriage formulation either.

See my below posts for my arguments on why framing it as purely gender neutral rather than as ?gay marriage? helps more people.

Full post as published by Jolly Lawger on April 25, 2009 (boomark / email).