A Right to Marry? Same-sex Marriage and Constitutional Law

All terzetto hails invoke both(prenominal) due exhibit and equal protection. The mom court nones that the twain guarantees frequently overlap, as they do here. They whole assort that the expert to marry is an mortal liberty up skilful that also involves an equality component: a group of masses cant be fenced out of that right without a genuinely strong semipolitical defense. How strong? here(predicate) the states diverge. The Massachusetts court held that the denial of same-sex marriages fails to draw and quarter even the able basis test. The calcium and Connecticut courts, by contrast, held that sexual preference course is a odd classification, analogizing sexual orientation to gender. What state interests fraud on the different side? The atomic number 20 and Connecticut opinions catch c befully the master(prenominal) contenders, concluding that no(prenominal) rises to the level of a compelling interest. Preserving usance either by itself cannot be su ch(prenominal) an interest: the beneficialification of tradition does not explain the classification, it just repeats it. Nor can secretion be warrant simply on the grounds that legislators make strong convictions. none of the other like policy considerations (the beaten(prenominal) ones we have already identified) stands up as sufficiently strong. These opinions volition not persuade everyone. Nor will all who like their conclusion, or even their reasoning, agree that its good for courts to bring off this issue, rather than egalitarian majorities. But the opinions, I believe, should convince a reasonable mortal that constitutional law, and accordingly courts, have a legitimate utilization to play in this divisive area, at least sometimes, stand up for minorities who are at happen in the majoritarian political process. \n