quote:Originally posted by Vox:
There's a pretty standard rule of interpretation that when one interpretation would lead to an absurd result, and there's another interpretation that doesn't, you go with the one that doesn't.
Especially in the context of an absurd amendment.
I mean, what is the non-absurd interpretation?
On the one hand, preventing all couples from marrying would be absurd.
On the other hand, preventing couples from marying solely on account of gender would be absurd.
When faced with two equally absurd interpretations, which one do you go with?