Active Users:919 Time:02/08/2026 11:18:43 AM
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 1141 Views
An excellent ruling. Thanks for the post. *NM* - 18/10/2012 08:47:54 PM 340 Views
Oh, and they addressed the First Circuit's argument: - 18/10/2012 08:54:47 PM 916 Views
I always knew that DomA guy was bad news. - 18/10/2012 09:05:13 PM 660 Views
As it should be; the DoMA was always a brazen affront to the Equal Protection Clause - 19/10/2012 12:06:13 AM 911 Views
Not really - 19/10/2012 02:16:04 PM 816 Views
Not quite - 19/10/2012 02:56:56 PM 709 Views
Yes, really, for "any CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT." - 19/10/2012 03:12:11 PM 786 Views
joel, please stop - 19/10/2012 05:42:51 PM 766 Views
That's such a stupid, puerile argument. - 19/10/2012 03:47:26 PM 788 Views
Not the best analogy, though I agree with the sentiment. - 19/10/2012 04:10:11 PM 718 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 741 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 337 Views
How about I "marry" a corporation then. THAT is how stupid the entire arguement is. *NM* - 19/10/2012 07:25:13 PM 338 Views
Another good example of how corporations aren't the same as people. *NM* - 19/10/2012 10:07:32 PM 341 Views
Would you be the bride? Would you wear white? - 20/10/2012 07:58:52 PM 708 Views
You have obviously not read my posts very carefully - 22/10/2012 04:23:22 PM 669 Views
Ah, the "I have Gay Friends" argument. - 22/10/2012 09:33:41 PM 695 Views
It was only a matter of time. - 19/10/2012 02:49:21 PM 746 Views
I do not understand why fundamentalists demand government dictate religion. - 19/10/2012 03:22:54 PM 910 Views
Which is why the entire method of legal attack being mounted is dumb. - 19/10/2012 05:53:12 PM 819 Views
the only ones forcing their beliefs down everyone's throats are people like yourself - 19/10/2012 06:44:57 PM 793 Views
There is no right being denied... - 19/10/2012 07:22:24 PM 748 Views
No? - 19/10/2012 11:34:36 PM 717 Views
Really - 22/10/2012 04:29:38 PM 729 Views
You are making one, huge factual mistake that is screwing up your entire argument: - 20/10/2012 11:00:28 PM 772 Views
Nope I am not - 22/10/2012 04:34:59 PM 702 Views
That is just it: Most US marriage laws are already areligious. - 23/10/2012 05:08:38 PM 730 Views
Yes, the laws are 100% secular... - 23/10/2012 07:01:08 PM 688 Views

Reply to Message