tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post8876305146594301137..comments2024-03-18T22:21:33.261-07:00Comments on The Debate Link: Their Strongest LightDavid Schraubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-46933430103803320312014-09-09T09:17:21.306-07:002014-09-09T09:17:21.306-07:00The complimentarian argument is almost the only on...The complimentarian argument is almost the only one with any logic, even if only formalistic, against same-sex marriage. If I insist that marriage must consist of people of the opposite sex, then there is something about sex/gender itself that is essential to marriage. As you say, when made about the social aspect of sex without reference to the biological aspect, "the argument does not track well to current legal doctrine. It is seemingly dependent on essentialist notions of sex roles, and courts will immediately recognize the tension between adopting such an argument and adhering to the requirements of the equal protection clause as applied to gender."<br /><br />However, I was thinking a long time ago (ie ~9 years) about how the remnants of constitutionally permissible sex discrimination under case law are pretty much all about biology rather than purely socialized gender roles. As Justice Ginsburg put it in US v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996): "Physical differences between men and women, however, are enduring". <br /><br />I don't remember anymore what all the cases were that still seem to be standing, but Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County, 450 U.S. 464 (1981) and Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001) were among them, and both lean heavily on the fact that the ladies make the babies.PGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09381347581328622706noreply@blogger.com