“Supporters of banning gay marriage won two major court rulings Friday, with a federal appeals court reinstating Nebraska's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage and the Tennessee Supreme Court ruling that voters should have a say on the issue.”

The Nebraska case went before the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals who ruled that the state amendment, which limits state-recognized marriage to heteros, is “rationally related to legitimate state interests and therefore [does] not violate the Constitution of the United States."

I still have yet to hear a satisfactory argument about what precisely the state interest is in denying equality to the LGBT community, no less how imposing that claimed interest doesn’t violate the Constitution. There were (and are) plenty of states who have an interest in denying the right to vote to people of color. I’m sure come creative retrofucks could construct a viable argument that some states would have an economic interest in denying women the right to work. State interest, when it comes to extending full equality to an oppressed population, shouldn’t trump that population’s members’ individual Constitutional rights—and if a state is going to do so, then they ought to have a better reason, supported by quantifiable data, than “It’s in our interest because we think boys kissing is icky…and, uh, it undermines the family! Yeah, that’s the ticket!”

Shakesville is run as a safe space. First-time commenters: Please read Shakesville's Commenting Policy and Feminism 101 Section before commenting. We also do lots of in-thread moderation, so we ask that everyone read the entirety of any thread before commenting, to ensure compliance with any in-thread moderation. Thank you.

blog comments powered by Disqus