Active Users:690 Time:01/11/2024 12:34:28 AM
Re: I wonder about that one as well. Burr Send a noteboard - 19/10/2012 01:18:22 AM
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.
This message last edited by Burr on 19/10/2012 at 01:29:18 AM
Reply to message
2nd Circuit rules in favor of Edith Windsor. DOMA unconstitutional. - 18/10/2012 08:37:12 PM 896 Views
An excellent ruling. Thanks for the post. *NM* - 18/10/2012 08:47:54 PM 254 Views
Oh, and they addressed the First Circuit's argument: - 18/10/2012 08:54:47 PM 703 Views
I always knew that DomA guy was bad news. - 18/10/2012 09:05:13 PM 458 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 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 571 Views
I'm sure there is. The California case is likely to discuss it. - 19/10/2012 02:48:02 PM 615 Views
There is a good chance it won't happen - 19/10/2012 03:02:50 PM 689 Views
Kennedy will go along with them. *NM* - 19/10/2012 10:05:38 PM 234 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
Not quite - 19/10/2012 02:56:56 PM 498 Views
Yes, really, for "any CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT." - 19/10/2012 03:12:11 PM 600 Views
joel, please stop - 19/10/2012 05:42:51 PM 566 Views
That's such a stupid, puerile argument. - 19/10/2012 03:47:26 PM 579 Views
Not the best analogy, though I agree with the sentiment. - 19/10/2012 04:10:11 PM 508 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
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
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
No? - 19/10/2012 11:34:36 PM 526 Views
Really - 22/10/2012 04:29:38 PM 534 Views
You are making one, huge factual mistake that is screwing up your entire argument: - 20/10/2012 11:00:28 PM 576 Views
Nope I am not - 22/10/2012 04:34:59 PM 514 Views
That is just it: Most US marriage laws are already areligious. - 23/10/2012 05:08:38 PM 527 Views
Yes, the laws are 100% secular... - 23/10/2012 07:01:08 PM 496 Views

Reply to Message