Equal Protection based on Gender and not Sexual Orientation

[yodermon]

Has this approach ever been litigated anywhere in the US?

Consider:
Jane is a woman. Susan is a woman.
Susan can't marry Jane because Susan is a woman.
Were Susan a man, it would be legal.
De facto unequal protection under the law, thus unconstitutional, QED.

[DU9598]

1. Yes

Yes, it has been litigated unsuccessfully. It has been held that Susan is not denied a marriage, she could still choose to marry Jack.

Perhaps a new makeup in the appeals courts will make such legal challenges ripe again.

[yodermon]

2. oh good Gawd.

i hope so because that logic is unsound even on its face. Hetero's don't have to "choose" someone else, ergo we still have still unequal protection.
Thanks for the info.