In the recent decision in Fisher v. University of Texas, in which the court decided in a 7-1 vote to punt the issue back to the 5th Disrict, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote "The Constitution does not pander to faddish theories about whether race mixing is in the public interest. The Equal Protection Clause strips States of all authority to use race as a factor in providing education"
Wonder what would happen if we applied that language to the issue of same sex marriage: …The Constitution does not pander to faddish theories about whether [gender preference in marriage] is in the public interest. The Equal Protection Clause strips States of all authority to use [gender preference] as a factor in providing [access to marital contracts].
See how that works?
So blindingly clear it's a wonder it still has to be stated. Which you have done here so very well.
ReplyDeleteWe'll find out tomorrow.
ReplyDelete