Tag-team Responses

On Sunday I posted a response to Eve Tushnet's NC Register column.  At the time I responded to the second half of her column and promised I would respond at a later time to what I believe were her more intresting arguments concering "bait-and-switch".  Before composing my thoughts, though, I notice that Ampersand has already dealt with the subject rather well.  Ironically, he started with the "bait-and-switch" and was going to respond to the "procreation" half before noticing my comments.  So it all works rather nicely.

I encourage everyone to read Ampersand's full post on the "bait-and-switch", but here are some highlights I particularly liked...

The fact is, the majority decision barely mentioned these laws, let alone relied on them to make its case..it's plain that Greaney would have voted the same way even if the ERA-like law had not existed.

It's not as if the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment envisioned Loving versus Virginia... -or even Brown vs Board of Ed... Yet I doubt that Eve would argue that these decisions were blows to democracy

Ampersand also points out that many who were opposed and some who supported the ERA did believe it would lead to same-sex marriage.  Ultimately, the ERA entered the state constitution by the voters and it is impossible to determine whether they would have voted against it if they saw the future.  In any case, as he points out, ERA or no ERA the justices in Goodridge were still going to require at least a rational basis for the classifications which they did not find present.

Comments

[Ampersand]

Just in case anyone comes across this post and is trying to find the post it links to, it now resides here.