Active Users:709 Time:26/03/2026 04:48:51 PM
Not quite Roland00 Send a noteboard - 19/10/2012 02:56:56 PM
Equal protection under the law means that all citizens must be treated equally. Doesn't matter with race, gender, religion, handicap, sexual orientation, etc.

By placing limits on who you can marry (you can only marry people of opposite gender) you are not treating all citizens equally. The only time government can not treat citizens equally is when it is serves a governmental interest and they way they are achieving that government interest is an enumerated power in the constitution.

Thus the government can choose not to treat its citizens as equal if it furthers some other government interest. The government can discriminate in marriage by only allowing opposite gender marriage because it makes society better in some way, and this better way further some governmental interest.

All rights and powers are subject to balance tests. With equal protection under the law (14th amendment and to limited extent 5th amendment due to due process clause of 5th amendment) Discrimination must pass "scrutiny," usually the scrutiny is the lowest which is called rational basis, but there is an intermediate scrutiny, and the highest called strict scrutiny.

-------------

Pretty much the court threw out DOMA for the rational on only opposite gender couple marriage is bullocks.
Reply to message
2nd Circuit rules in favor of Edith Windsor. DOMA unconstitutional. - 18/10/2012 08:37:12 PM 1077 Views
An excellent ruling. Thanks for the post. *NM* - 18/10/2012 08:47:54 PM 311 Views
Oh, and they addressed the First Circuit's argument: - 18/10/2012 08:54:47 PM 857 Views
I always knew that DomA guy was bad news. - 18/10/2012 09:05:13 PM 599 Views
As it should be; the DoMA was always a brazen affront to the Equal Protection Clause - 19/10/2012 12:06:13 AM 848 Views
Not really - 19/10/2012 02:16:04 PM 764 Views
Not quite - 19/10/2012 02:56:56 PM 655 Views
Yes, really, for "any CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT." - 19/10/2012 03:12:11 PM 740 Views
joel, please stop - 19/10/2012 05:42:51 PM 711 Views
That's such a stupid, puerile argument. - 19/10/2012 03:47:26 PM 730 Views
Not the best analogy, though I agree with the sentiment. - 19/10/2012 04:10:11 PM 664 Views
Then by the "legal argument" you all propose I should have the "right" to marry a spoon... - 19/10/2012 05:48:32 PM 688 Views
if your spoon or dog is capable of making power of attorney decisions then by all means do so *NM* - 19/10/2012 06:41:43 PM 312 Views
How about I "marry" a corporation then. THAT is how stupid the entire arguement is. *NM* - 19/10/2012 07:25:13 PM 306 Views
Another good example of how corporations aren't the same as people. *NM* - 19/10/2012 10:07:32 PM 313 Views
Would you be the bride? Would you wear white? - 20/10/2012 07:58:52 PM 652 Views
You have obviously not read my posts very carefully - 22/10/2012 04:23:22 PM 613 Views
Ah, the "I have Gay Friends" argument. - 22/10/2012 09:33:41 PM 634 Views
It was only a matter of time. - 19/10/2012 02:49:21 PM 685 Views
I do not understand why fundamentalists demand government dictate religion. - 19/10/2012 03:22:54 PM 856 Views
Which is why the entire method of legal attack being mounted is dumb. - 19/10/2012 05:53:12 PM 769 Views
the only ones forcing their beliefs down everyone's throats are people like yourself - 19/10/2012 06:44:57 PM 737 Views
There is no right being denied... - 19/10/2012 07:22:24 PM 696 Views
No? - 19/10/2012 11:34:36 PM 665 Views
Really - 22/10/2012 04:29:38 PM 681 Views
You are making one, huge factual mistake that is screwing up your entire argument: - 20/10/2012 11:00:28 PM 721 Views
Nope I am not - 22/10/2012 04:34:59 PM 652 Views
That is just it: Most US marriage laws are already areligious. - 23/10/2012 05:08:38 PM 667 Views
Yes, the laws are 100% secular... - 23/10/2012 07:01:08 PM 635 Views

Reply to Message