As you surely recall, one of the big arguments against state laws allowing gay marriage, and a key motivation behind the DoMA, was that the Full Faith and Credit Clause would force all states to recognize gay marriage if any did. Many state gay marriage laws were explicitly modified in response to those fears, denying out of state couples the ability to drop in for a wedding illegal in their own state then go home and demand recognition their states laws deny. It seems as open and shut as the Equal Protection Clause argument but then, I am not a lawyer.
Well, it's if the SCOTUS decides the rational-basis standard best applies that it is least likely to find the bans unconstitutional. The federal government has a harder time satisfying rational basis than state governments, precisely because state governments don't have to be uniform. So a) the SCOTUS could set a new precedent regarding FF&C, one which allows states to maintain their bans under rational basis, or b) the SCOTUS could strike down Section 3 of DOMA but not Section 2, allowing Section 2 to survive under rational basis. If either of those happens, the bans could stay in place. What we really need is for SCOTUS to rule that laws challenged for discriminating against homosexuals must meet the heightened scrutiny standard; since the bans would almost absolutely certainly be found unconstitutional under heightened scrutiny. It would just be a matter of challenging them, or the SCOTUS going ahead and ruling on it as a related matter
I find it interesting that, on both burden of proof and the Equal Protection Clause, conservatives and liberals take opposing views of the Constitution on gay marriage, but switch places on guns. I can respect both loose and strict construction views of the Constitution, but going back and forth as convenient strikes me as very self serving. If the Constitution requires TX to accept gay marriage licenses issued in CT, surely it requires CT accept gun licenses issued in TX; it cannot require either unless it requires both, because both rest on the same constitutional foundation.
It is very hard to paint "gun owners" as some kind of discrete group that would be discriminated against more than others by gun control laws, even on the level of rational basis. There is no identifiable group that the government would be discriminating against: any person can be a gun owner or not be a gun owner as easily as another. Hell, even if there were an actual religion that required gun ownership, rational basis would still kick it's arse, just like it did with peyote-using Native Americans when they claimed drug laws discriminated against them. So rational basis easily takes care of gun control laws. And heightened security? Fuggetaboutit. Gun owners are the very opposite of a discriminated-against, politically weak group, and gun ownership easily lends itself arguments about differences in ability to contribute to society, positive or negative.
||||||||||*MySmiley*
Only so evil.
Only so evil.
This message last edited by Burr on 19/10/2012 at 01:29:18 AM
2nd Circuit rules in favor of Edith Windsor. DOMA unconstitutional.
- 18/10/2012 08:37:12 PM
896 Views
Completely unsurprising since the Justice department refuses to defend the law.
- 18/10/2012 09:05:16 PM
512 Views
For a moment there I thought you were saying the Supreme Court had ruled it unconstitutional.
- 18/10/2012 09:10:16 PM
564 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
623 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
638 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
225 Views
I wonder about that one as well.
- 19/10/2012 12:39:54 AM
573 Views
Re: I wonder about that one as well.
- 19/10/2012 01:18:22 AM
572 Views
Either a ban discriminates against those affected more than those unaffected, or it does not.
- 19/10/2012 03:48:32 PM
459 Views
Gun control laws can equally affect everyone, though, is my point.
- 20/10/2012 10:52:41 PM
561 Views
I'm sure there is. The California case is likely to discuss it.
- 19/10/2012 02:48:02 PM
615 Views
I just have to note in passing that Ted Olsons memoires will make fascinating reading.
- 19/10/2012 04:44:15 PM
656 Views
Also, hooray! Let's hope SCOTUS adheres (if you use that term over there). *NM*
- 18/10/2012 10:59:14 PM
247 Views
As it should be; the DoMA was always a brazen affront to the Equal Protection Clause
- 19/10/2012 12:06:13 AM
708 Views
Not really
- 19/10/2012 02:16:04 PM
631 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
539 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
254 Views
How about I "marry" a corporation then. THAT is how stupid the entire arguement is. *NM*
- 19/10/2012 07:25:13 PM
245 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
615 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
617 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
526 Views
Wrong. I do not have an emotional stake in this, I am simply using logic. *NM*
- 22/10/2012 03:59:08 PM
259 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
240 Views
EXACTLY, and that was the point I was making. Congratualtions for figuring that out. *NM*
- 22/10/2012 11:34:46 PM
228 Views
you are obviously using some humpty dumpty definition of "logic" then *NM*
- 22/10/2012 11:40:12 PM
240 Views
No, you apparently failed reading comprehension in school.
- 23/10/2012 03:08:44 PM
543 Views
#1: fuck you. #2: you are still not using logic
- 23/10/2012 05:50:14 PM
505 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
581 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
661 Views
Another good example of how corporations aren't the same as people. *NM*
- 19/10/2012 10:07:32 PM
249 Views
Would you be the bride? Would you wear white?
- 20/10/2012 07:58:52 PM
500 Views
You have obviously not read my posts very carefully
- 22/10/2012 04:23:22 PM
472 Views
Ah, the "I have Gay Friends" argument.
- 22/10/2012 09:33:41 PM
496 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
645 Views
It was only a matter of time.
- 19/10/2012 02:49:21 PM
547 Views
I do not understand why fundamentalists demand government dictate religion.
- 19/10/2012 03:22:54 PM
706 Views
Which is why the entire method of legal attack being mounted is dumb.
- 19/10/2012 05:53:12 PM
620 Views
the only ones forcing their beliefs down everyone's throats are people like yourself
- 19/10/2012 06:44:57 PM
588 Views
There is no right being denied...
- 19/10/2012 07:22:24 PM
548 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
612 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
675 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
503 Views
There are no "marriage rights" NONE, zip, ziltch, nada...
- 22/10/2012 04:18:15 PM
562 Views
why bother settling custody in a divorce then if there are no "marriage rights"?
- 22/10/2012 06:38:14 PM
457 Views
You are making one, huge factual mistake that is screwing up your entire argument:
- 20/10/2012 11:00:28 PM
576 Views