- Click here for the decision.
Starting on page 16, the judge offers a review of the various standards that can be used to strike differences between groups (strict scrutiny etc...) and concludes that the law has no rational purpose. This means a higher standard must be used to strike differences between same and heterosexual couples for purposes of marriage.
Its a great take on a subject I may or may not have covered clearly in class - but students should read though it so they can see how the topic is applied currently to deal with this ongoing issue.
Here's an important part of the decision from page 20 - here the judge denies that the reasons offered fro banning same sex marriage met a legitimate state interest - which is the low bar a law has to clear in order to meet the requirements of rational basis review - the same requirements age restrictions on drinking have to clear:
Largely in keeping with the justifications offered in their summary judgment motion, at trial, the state defendants asserted that the MMA serves the following legitimate state interests: (1) providing an optimal environment for child rearing; (2) proceeding with caution before altering the traditional definition of marriage; and (3) upholding tradition and morality. Additionally, the state defendants consistently asserted that defining marriage is within the exclusive purview of the state’s police power. None of these proffered reasons provides a rational basis for adopting the amendment.
Continue with the decision to unpack his reasoning.
