Re: [UUPoly-L] the VP debate last night

["licorice gumdrop" <licorice.gumdrop@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 10:26 AM, Linda Fingerson <slyypper@hotmail.com>wrote:

>
> Now all you legal scholars out there:  does Biden's clarification in this
> last paragraph seem to you to intend pushing for equal access to federal
> entitlement programs like social security & Medicare?
>


whatever biden was advocating, i was a bit surprised by his invocation of
the constitution to support his position.  (disclaimer: i'm not a
constitutional scholar by any stretch, only a lowly lawyer.)  i really don't
remember much supreme court marriage-related jurisprudence beyond
loving's (interracial
marriage) holding that marriage was one of the "basic civil rights of man"
and therefore fell under the 14th amendment's equal protection clause.  but
sexual orientation isn't a protected class (at the federal level; it is in
some states), and the much later lawrence decision (striking down a texas
sodomy law), IMO, should be narrowly read to pertain only to private,
consensual, sexual behavior, not orientation.

there are those, however, who believe that loving could successfully be used
as precedent to support same-sex marriage (and polyamorous marriage, for
that matter - i may have argued as much in prior posts, but that also
implicates the court's reynolds anti-polygamy decision) - and given enough
time, i think it will be.

however, given that biden took care to enumerate only three "constitutional
guarantees" created by marriage (hospital visitation rights, joint ownership
of property, life insurance policies), and given the political realities
facing same-sex marriage on the federal stage, i don't think he was pushing
for equal access to federal programs such as social security and medicare.

just my bailout-discounted two cents.

cheers,

- j