Married people can avoid estate taxes through mechanisms such as a living trust. The tax benefits can be enormous - to married heterosexuals.
Homosexual couples are at a disadvantage to married couples in child issues. For example, if the biological partner dies, the surviving partner has no rights in many states. Can you imagine how devastating it is for a child to realize that, because one parent dies, they'll be potentially taken away from the other?
The issue with medical benefits is that if a company offers spousal benefits, it must extend that benefit to all full time employees within the group. However, it does not have to extend those benefits to same-sex couples. That is, there is no protection for same-sex partners to enjoy the same benefit as heterosexual married couples.
Equal protection means that all laws are applied evenly. Originally intended to protect minorities from discriminatory laws, it applies to all citizens. A law cannot be passed that says, for example, pregnant women can't smoke because it may endanger their fetuses, although it is feasible to pass a law that bans all smoking. Similarly, benefits and privileges cannot be granted under the law to one group while excluding another; for example, you couldn't have a park that is limited to only women.
Gay people are a subgroup of citizens who do not enjoy the same privileges as heterosexuals, specifically in their inability to marry and enjoy the legal benefits of marriage.
With regards to the legislative attempt to circumvent the doctrine of judicial nullification: if passed, the precedent would have tremendous impact. Can you imagine what would happen if every bill had a clause tacked on that said "This law is not subject to judicial review".
Yes, I hope that more reasonable heads prevail. But seeing what has happened since 9/11, I'm not going to count on it... |
