Yes, really, for "any CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT." - Edit 1
Before modification by Joel at 19/10/2012 03:12:25 PM
For my money, any constitutionally protected right places the burden of proof on the federal government to show the nations highest law is not violated by inferior ones
^Not according to the rational that allowed the SCOTUS to uphold Obamacare. In it Roberts aserts that it is the duty of the court to uphold a law if it is possible under any interpretation. I don"t agree with him, but I am not a SC Justice.
Robamacare violates no constitutionally guaranteed right, not even the right to equal protection under the law, because the uninsured tax penalty is identical for everyone. In fact, the Constitutions Taxing and Spending Clause authorizes that or any other unfirom tax Congress passes and the president signs.
DOMA (and homosexual marriage) is not an equal protections issue, no matter how many people try to claim it is. A hetrosexual and a homosexual have the exact same marriage privledge (it is not a "right" anyways). That is the definition of equal rights.
Whether marriage is a right is irrelevant to the Equal Protection Clause, because all marriage or any other laws must apply equally to everyone. Further, laws allowing some groups yet forbidding others to marry the consenting adult of their choice, with all pursuant rights and privileges, is the definition of unequal protection. Windsor illustrates that nicely: A widow was forced to pay >$300,000 "inheritance" tax on her wifes assets, yet no widow pays any tax on her HUSBANDS assets.