When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so. That resolves these cases.
Friday, June 26, 2015
From Scalia's Dissent
I take this quotation to indicate that Scalia also believes that the 14th Amendment doesn't extend equal rights to women:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I'm sure you're correct. The Fifteenth Amendment lists "race, color, or previous condition of servitude" as the criteria for protected status. That Amendment Nineteen was needed before women could vote is a powerful illustration that the interpretation of Amendment Fourteen was much less expansive a century ago than it is now, though it's still not broad enough (yet!) to obviate the need for an Equal Rights Amendment.
I've read the SC has been relatively reluctant to make gender a suspect classification, because women aren't a minority. There are (theoretically) political remedies available, so the class is less in need of special protection. That argument seems totally blind to history - the above about the Nineteenth makes the point well. But I don't know anything about how the law looks at that.
Is there a good book - for the layperson - about equal protection jurisprudence?
I will ask around - I have various lawyer friends.
Post a Comment