Tweet
The decision's logic is simply infantile. They dramatically misapply Lawrence and overstate what the court was saying in Windsor. What the 4th effectively has said with this decision is that no state can define their own marriage restrictions if the court disagrees with that restriction. The section dismissing Virginia's federalist right to define what constitutes a legal marriage was sloppy and emotionally dismissive. Their entire argument boiled down to this:
However, Windsor
is actually detrimental to their position. Although the Court
emphasized states’ traditional authority over marriage, it
acknowledged that “[s]tate laws defining and regulating
marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of
persons.” Id. at 2691 (citing Loving, 388 U.S. 1); see also id.
at 2692 (“The States’ interest in defining and regulating the
marital relation[] [is] subject to constitutional guarantees.”).
Windsor does not teach us that federalism principles can justify
depriving individuals of their constitutional rights; it
reiterates Loving’s admonition that the states must exercise
their authority without trampling constitutional guarantees.
Virginia’s federalism-based interest in defining marriage
therefore cannot justify its encroachment on the fundamental
right to marry.
is actually detrimental to their position. Although the Court
emphasized states’ traditional authority over marriage, it
acknowledged that “[s]tate laws defining and regulating
marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of
persons.” Id. at 2691 (citing Loving, 388 U.S. 1); see also id.
at 2692 (“The States’ interest in defining and regulating the
marital relation[] [is] subject to constitutional guarantees.”).
Windsor does not teach us that federalism principles can justify
depriving individuals of their constitutional rights; it
reiterates Loving’s admonition that the states must exercise
their authority without trampling constitutional guarantees.
Virginia’s federalism-based interest in defining marriage
therefore cannot justify its encroachment on the fundamental
right to marry.
That's plain and simply a bunch of crap. The Constitution does not guarantee anyone the right to marry anyone they choose. There have always been limits on who can legally marry, and what constitutes a legal marriage. The rights of the individual are consistently applied in Virginia's amendment, which equally provides a standard of legal marriage without unevenly curtailing the rights of the individual.
Comment