Mmm. The trouble is, the conclusion then is that this judge made an incorrect ruling when he said there was no rational basis for the enactment. Denying same-sex marriage helps stigmatize male homosexuality and associated acts, and a stigma against it discourages male bisexuals from engaging in such acts. Since, in the U.S., there is definitely a statistical link between male-male sexual contact and HIV infection rates, and it is undoubtedly a rational state interest to take actions that reduce the number of persons infected with HIV, the rational basis test does, in fact, support a ban on same-sex marriage.
That doesn't mean the result of the judgment can't survive; there are several other arguments made in the decision. But I'd expect the decision to be quite narrowed as the results of the appeals. It's reaching too wide to stand as written.
Of course, since appeal was inevitable anyway, maybe a wide-as-possible decision was best, since it is most likely to leave something standing after review.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-08-06 10:57 pm (UTC)That doesn't mean the result of the judgment can't survive; there are several other arguments made in the decision. But I'd expect the decision to be quite narrowed as the results of the appeals. It's reaching too wide to stand as written.
Of course, since appeal was inevitable anyway, maybe a wide-as-possible decision was best, since it is most likely to leave something standing after review.