Pages: 1 2

“Without analysis or explanation, Judge Friedman presumed that a person in a same-sex relationship is ‘similarly situated’ to a person in an opposite-sex relationship,” the brief explained, going on to cite “three distinct biological and physiological dissimilarities between same-sex and opposite-sex couples that demonstrate that a person desirous of marrying another person of the same sex is not similarly situated with a person who is desirous of marrying a person of the opposite sex.”

The three points relate to biological gender classification, the existence of complementary sexual organs, and the inability of procreation between same-sex partners.


Advertisement


While the judge acknowledged that citizens of the state should be able to decide such matters for themselves, the brief concluded that he “paid only lip service” to the idea of federalism, concluding his decision will doubtlessly “lead to challenges to state laws prohibiting polygamy and even incestuous couples.”

Photo credit: WehoCity (Flickr)

Pages: 1 2


Don't Miss Out. Subscribe By Email Or Facebook

Email

Facebook