Last Thursday, a federal judge in
In November 2000,
The amendment was approved in the wake of a decision by the Vermont Supreme Court.
Given the way state and federal judges find previously undiscovered or even unimagined ?rights,? supporters of this and similar amendments wanted to lock this prohibition into their constitution. But even this turned out not to be enough.
Federal judge Joseph Bataillon threw out the amendment, saying it imposed ?significant burdens on both the expressive and intimate associational rights? of gay men and lesbians.
Instead of deferring to the voters? judgment on the nature of marriage, Bataillon chose to insult them. He wrote that the amendment ?goes so far beyond defining marriage that the court can only conclude that the intent and purpose of the amendment is based on animus against this class.?
Ah, yes, if that language sounds familiar to ?BreakPoint? listeners and readers, that?s because it?s straight out of Romer v. Evans. In that case, the Supreme Court overturned a
Now, given the prominence of same-sex ?marriage? in both public debates and in the liberal imagination, you would think that this story would warrant big headlines in major newspapers.
Conservatives Clash as House Prepares to Vote on Ryan-Murray Budget Deal -- UPDATE: House passes 332-94 | Guy Benson
Heartbreaking: Dad Gives Up Trying to Obtain Health Insurance For His Ailing Son on the Exchanges | Daniel Doherty
CNN to Carney: Say, Why Didn't Obama Press Congress with Gun Control Like He Did with Syrian Intervention? | Greg Hengler