Active Users:531 Time:06/04/2025 12:02:25 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 970 Views
An excellent ruling. Thanks for the post. *NM* - 18/10/2012 08:47:54 PM 270 Views
Oh, and they addressed the First Circuit's argument: - 18/10/2012 08:54:47 PM 752 Views
I always knew that DomA guy was bad news. - 18/10/2012 09:05:13 PM 505 Views
As it should be; the DoMA was always a brazen affront to the Equal Protection Clause - 19/10/2012 12:06:13 AM 749 Views
Not really - 19/10/2012 02:16:04 PM 670 Views
Not quite - 19/10/2012 02:56:56 PM 546 Views
Yes, really, for "any CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT." - 19/10/2012 03:12:11 PM 645 Views
joel, please stop - 19/10/2012 05:42:51 PM 606 Views
That's such a stupid, puerile argument. - 19/10/2012 03:47:26 PM 621 Views
Not the best analogy, though I agree with the sentiment. - 19/10/2012 04:10:11 PM 554 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 587 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 271 Views
How about I "marry" a corporation then. THAT is how stupid the entire arguement is. *NM* - 19/10/2012 07:25:13 PM 263 Views
Another good example of how corporations aren't the same as people. *NM* - 19/10/2012 10:07:32 PM 267 Views
Would you be the bride? Would you wear white? - 20/10/2012 07:58:52 PM 542 Views
You have obviously not read my posts very carefully - 22/10/2012 04:23:22 PM 521 Views
Ah, the "I have Gay Friends" argument. - 22/10/2012 09:33:41 PM 535 Views
It was only a matter of time. - 19/10/2012 02:49:21 PM 596 Views
I do not understand why fundamentalists demand government dictate religion. - 19/10/2012 03:22:54 PM 748 Views
Which is why the entire method of legal attack being mounted is dumb. - 19/10/2012 05:53:12 PM 669 Views
the only ones forcing their beliefs down everyone's throats are people like yourself - 19/10/2012 06:44:57 PM 635 Views
There is no right being denied... - 19/10/2012 07:22:24 PM 602 Views
No? - 19/10/2012 11:34:36 PM 573 Views
Really - 22/10/2012 04:29:38 PM 581 Views
You are making one, huge factual mistake that is screwing up your entire argument: - 20/10/2012 11:00:28 PM 621 Views
Nope I am not - 22/10/2012 04:34:59 PM 558 Views
That is just it: Most US marriage laws are already areligious. - 23/10/2012 05:08:38 PM 571 Views
Yes, the laws are 100% secular... - 23/10/2012 07:01:08 PM 546 Views

Reply to Message