Does the proposed amendment violate the U.S. Constitution?
The Supreme Court has expressly left the question open. See Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 578 (2003). The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals recently reversed a lower courts conclusion that a similar amendment in Nebraska was unconstitutional. See Citizens for Equal Protection, Inc. v. Bruning, __ F.3d __, 2006 WL 1933417 (8th Cir. July 14, 2006), reversing 368 F.Supp.2d 980 (D. Neb. 2005) (amendment providing that The uniting of two persons of the same sex in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other similar same-sex relationship shall not be valid or recognized in Nebraska violates equal protection, the bill of attainder clause, and First Amendment rights of expressive association and petition). Because the amendment so clearly disfavors gay men and lesbian women a group that surely qualifies as a discrete and insular minority that has difficulty protecting itself in the majoritarian political process it seems particularly vulnerable to equal protection challenge. See United States
Related Questions
- How does the proposed amendment interact with the Missouri Constitutions existing Hancock Amendment, and does Hancock already provide adequate legal protection against a transfer tax?
- What happens to a proposed constitution or constitutional amendment adopted by the convention?
- Does the proposed amendment violate the U.S. Constitution?
