Abstract
In Baker v. State, the Vermont Supreme Court employed rational basis with bite scrutiny and courageously held that the Vermont Constitution required that same-sex couples be afforded marriage-like benefits. The court recognized that the marriage statute employed a sex-based classification but misunderstood what triggers heightened scrutiny and so refused to employ it. The court's analysis, if adopted, would severely undermine equal protection guarantees. The correct analysis will permit these guarantees to function properly and will force states to should a greater burden when attempting to justify their marriage statutes.
How to Cite
42 Ariz. L. Rev. 935 (2000)
4
Views
4
Downloads