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.
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.
2nd Circuit rules in favor of Edith Windsor. DOMA unconstitutional.
18/10/2012 08:37:12 PM
- 1017 Views
Completely unsurprising since the Justice department refuses to defend the law.
18/10/2012 09:05:16 PM
- 604 Views
For a moment there I thought you were saying the Supreme Court had ruled it unconstitutional.
18/10/2012 09:10:16 PM
- 645 Views
Do you know if there's a case about DOMA and the "full faith and credit" clause?
18/10/2012 10:05:11 PM
- 721 Views
I don't know offhand, but my gchat friend will. If she pops on again, I'll ask her. But...
18/10/2012 10:37:09 PM
- 734 Views
I asked her about pending cases taking on Section 2. "None that I know of," she answered. *NM*
19/10/2012 12:46:21 AM
- 266 Views
I wonder about that one as well.
19/10/2012 12:39:54 AM
- 672 Views
Re: I wonder about that one as well.
19/10/2012 01:18:22 AM
- 660 Views
Either a ban discriminates against those affected more than those unaffected, or it does not.
19/10/2012 03:48:32 PM
- 551 Views
Gun control laws can equally affect everyone, though, is my point.
20/10/2012 10:52:41 PM
- 651 Views
I'm sure there is. The California case is likely to discuss it.
19/10/2012 02:48:02 PM
- 718 Views
I just have to note in passing that Ted Olsons memoires will make fascinating reading.
19/10/2012 04:44:15 PM
- 747 Views
Also, hooray! Let's hope SCOTUS adheres (if you use that term over there). *NM*
18/10/2012 10:59:14 PM
- 286 Views
As it should be; the DoMA was always a brazen affront to the Equal Protection Clause
19/10/2012 12:06:13 AM
- 799 Views
Not really
19/10/2012 02:16:04 PM
- 717 Views
Not quite
19/10/2012 02:56:56 PM
- 601 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
- 634 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
- 290 Views
How about I "marry" a corporation then. THAT is how stupid the entire arguement is. *NM*
19/10/2012 07:25:13 PM
- 284 Views
provide for us a legal reason why marrying a corporation should be recognized by the US gov't
19/10/2012 08:09:08 PM
- 708 Views
The argument above was that there was no jsutification it should not, thus it should be allowed.
19/10/2012 10:57:16 PM
- 711 Views
you are only offering your own emotional take on a legal decision there is no logic in your posts
19/10/2012 11:12:17 PM
- 624 Views
Wrong. I do not have an emotional stake in this, I am simply using logic. *NM*
22/10/2012 03:59:08 PM
- 298 Views
saying you should be able to marry a spoon or corporation is not logical reasoning. try again *NM*
22/10/2012 06:19:29 PM
- 278 Views
EXACTLY, and that was the point I was making. Congratualtions for figuring that out. *NM*
22/10/2012 11:34:46 PM
- 268 Views
you are obviously using some humpty dumpty definition of "logic" then *NM*
22/10/2012 11:40:12 PM
- 282 Views
No, you apparently failed reading comprehension in school.
23/10/2012 03:08:44 PM
- 638 Views
#1: fuck you. #2: you are still not using logic
23/10/2012 05:50:14 PM
- 601 Views
Ah yes, the fuck you argument... the height of all intelectual persuits... and you call ME emotional
23/10/2012 06:47:21 PM
- 676 Views
i see -- it's ok to be insulting as long as the "f-bomb" is not used. got it.
23/10/2012 10:27:54 PM
- 754 Views
Another good example of how corporations aren't the same as people. *NM*
19/10/2012 10:07:32 PM
- 293 Views
Would you be the bride? Would you wear white?
20/10/2012 07:58:52 PM
- 595 Views
You have obviously not read my posts very carefully
22/10/2012 04:23:22 PM
- 564 Views
Ah, the "I have Gay Friends" argument.
22/10/2012 09:33:41 PM
- 585 Views
No, I am not, try reading everything I have written on the subject before jumping to conclusions.
22/10/2012 11:41:05 PM
- 735 Views
It was only a matter of time.
19/10/2012 02:49:21 PM
- 639 Views
I do not understand why fundamentalists demand government dictate religion.
19/10/2012 03:22:54 PM
- 798 Views
Which is why the entire method of legal attack being mounted is dumb.
19/10/2012 05:53:12 PM
- 719 Views
the only ones forcing their beliefs down everyone's throats are people like yourself
19/10/2012 06:44:57 PM
- 678 Views
There is no right being denied...
19/10/2012 07:22:24 PM
- 650 Views
that is bullshit and you know it. or, alternatively, you do not understand legality in any way
19/10/2012 08:06:54 PM
- 718 Views
Re: that is bullshit and you know it. or, alternatively, you do not understand legality in any way
19/10/2012 11:11:55 PM
- 775 Views
nobody is arguing the legal right to marry, they are arguing about the legal rights marriage gives
19/10/2012 11:37:14 PM
- 609 Views
There are no "marriage rights" NONE, zip, ziltch, nada...
22/10/2012 04:18:15 PM
- 645 Views
why bother settling custody in a divorce then if there are no "marriage rights"?
22/10/2012 06:38:14 PM
- 549 Views
You are making one, huge factual mistake that is screwing up your entire argument:
20/10/2012 11:00:28 PM
- 674 Views