re: #55 lawhawk

[Embedded content]

The legal reasoning is similar to how NM Supreme Court ruled - particularly the part about how procreation is not a defining characteristic of marriage from a legal and constitutional point of view. The State attempted, and failed, to distinguish post-menapausal women from gays and lesbians in their inability to procreate.

I’d further note that men who have certain ailments are also unable to procreate (low sperm count, injuries, age, ED, etc.) but are not prohibited from marrying in a hetero- relationship. That goes to the crux of the argument based on procreation. It just doesn’t stand up to (intermediate) scrutiny.

Two courts in two days reaching virtually the same conclusion. Back to SCOTUS we go?