marriage denied to same-gender couples may not be justifiable, therefore inferring that it may be discriminatory to deny these other benefits to same-gender couples. The Hoge Raad stated, legislature-was not raised in these proceed ings p could only be addressed by the though, that a >question of this kind- which anyway 2. 1. 2 Challenging prohibitions against marriages of same-gender couples: An analysis of the Dutch case law The Dutch cases set out the two main arguments that have been made in both the United States and in the Netherlands when same-gendered couples sued for the right to marry. The first argument was one of statutory construction. Because the text in the marriage statutes does not state specifically that marriage only involves a man and a woman, the petitioners asserted that they should be issued a marriage license. However, this argument was not successful in any of the cases, because, as the Dutch courts pointed out, the lawmakers assumed, when they enacted the statutes, that marriages would involve only opposite-gender ndividuals The second argument that was made in these cases was that if marriage is limited to opposite-gender couples, then the marriage statutes violate certain rights found in constitutions or, in the Dutch cases, in international treaties. The most prominent rights asserted were the right to marry and the right to have a family, as well as provisions against Inequal treatment. The Dutch cases are examples of one of two possible directions the courts ould take within the context of this second argument - either the courts could the >separation of powers= analysis and thereby refuse to deal with the arguments or the courts could determine whether limiting marriage to opposite-gender couples was a violation of human rights principles. The Dutch district court took the first direction; it refused to analyze the human rights claims by stating that the inclusion of same-gender couples in the institution of marriage was a legislative, not a judicial question. Consequently, the court deferred to the legislature to deal with this issue. In the second case, however, the Netherlands Supreme Court did address the arguments, but the analysis seemed to be a repetition of the previous rationale found in the statutory interpretation issue. The Supreme Court determined that the rights protected in the treaties were limited by the >trad itional definition of marriage. In other words, there was no discrimination nor denial of human rights because the treaty provisions were drafted to protect only those individuals who fit into that trad itional definition of marriage and family life, i.e., opposite-gender couples. Therefore, the Netherlands Supreme Court did not go beyond this argument to ask the more probating questions of whether marriage was, in fact, much more than merely a method of regi procreation and the legitimation of childrenmarriage denied to same-gender couples may not be justifiable, therefore inferring that it may be discriminatory to deny these other benefits to same-gender couples. The Hoge Raad stated, though, that a >question of this kind - which anyway could only be addressed by the legislature - was not raised in these proceedings.= 28 2.1.2 Challenging prohibitions against marriages of same-gender couples: An analysis of the Dutch case law 28 Id. The Dutch cases set out the two main arguments that have been made in both the United States and in the Netherlands when same-gendered couples sued for the right to marry. The first argument was one of statutory construction. Because the text in the marriage statutes does not state specifically that marriage only involves a man and a woman, the petitioners asserted that they should be issued a marriage license. However, this argument was not successful in any of the cases, because, as the Dutch courts pointed out, the lawmakers assumed, when they enacted the statutes, that marriages would involve only opposite-gender individuals. The second argument that was made in these cases was that, if marriage is limited to opposite-gender couples, then the marriage statutes violate certain rights found in constitutions or, in the Dutch cases, in international treaties. The most prominent rights asserted were the right to marry and the right to have a family, as well as provisions against unequal treatment. The Dutch cases are examples of one of two possible directions the courts could take within the context of this second argument - either the courts could raise the >separation of powers= analysis and thereby refuse to deal with the arguments or the courts could determine whether limiting marriage to opposite-gender couples was a violation of human rights principles. The Dutch district court took the first direction; it refused to analyze the human rights claims by stating that the inclusion of same-gender couples in the institution of marriage was a legislative, not a judicial question. Consequently, the court deferred to the legislature to deal with this issue. In the second case, however, the Netherlands Supreme Court did address the arguments, but the analysis seemed to be a repetition of the previous rationale found in the statutory interpretation issue. The Supreme Court determined that the rights protected in the treaties were limited by the >traditional= definition of marriage. In other words, there was no discrimination nor denial of human rights because the treaty provisions were drafted to protect only those individuals who fit into that traditional definition of marriage and family life, i.e., opposite-gender couples. Therefore, the Netherlands Supreme Court did not go beyond this argument to ask the more probing questions of whether marriage was, in fact, much more than merely a method of regulating procreation and the legitimation of children