Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The point being the SC is as likely to use rational basis or intermediate scrutiny review as strict scrutiny.
Your point is incorrect, however. While there is a small chance that the rational basis could be applied, the evidence we have so far, to go along with the overall opinion of the legal community, is that the intermediate scrutiny test is the one likely to be applied over the other two.
Your point is incorrect, however. While there is a small chance that the rational basis could be applied, the evidence we have so far, to go along with the overall opinion of the legal community, is that the intermediate scrutiny test is the one likely to be applied over the other two.
You've changed your mind since post 22, when you wrote--- 'the SCOTUS is likely to apply the strict scrutiny model...'
I find it amusing that the people who are against same-sex marriage still have their panties all in a bunch over it. Several states have legalized it, and the world hasn't collapsed. But they still just can't stand the fact that they're not able to control others. That's really what it comes down to: Control.
Many of these same conservatives lecture us about freedom and liberty, yet they spend an awful lot of time trying to restrict the freedom and liberty of everyone around them.
When SCOTUS rules that SSM is constitutionally protected, a lot of religious fanatics and social conservatives heads are going to explode. I hope I am in a location that I can see that happen!
Which is irrelevant. The legal reasoning for overturning bans on interracial marriage can be applied to same sex marriage.
Wrong.
The Supreme Court needs to hear a case involving a homosexual couple, interracial or otherwise, in order to set an applicable precedent. The Loving v. Virginia case involved a man and a woman and had absolutely nothing, zero, to do with homosexuality.
The Supreme Court needs to hear a case involving a homosexual couple, interracial or otherwise, in order to set an applicable precedent. The Loving v. Virginia case involved a man and a woman and had absolutely nothing, zero, to do with homosexuality.
Are you reading a different conversation here? I clearly stated that the legal reasoning used in the Loving case is applicable to gay marriage and can be used to set that precedent.
The Supreme Court needs to hear a case involving a homosexual couple, interracial or otherwise, in order to set an applicable precedent. The Loving v. Virginia case involved a man and a woman and had absolutely nothing, zero, to do with homosexuality.
False. The Court made their ruling on the basis of there being no governmental interest that is strong enough to justify denying a marriage license on the basis of a protected class. Race is a protected class. But so is sex. The Court has no compelling reason to ban marriages on the basis of a spouse's sex.
It's perfectly applicable to Loving's ruling. In fact, I can take the court's opinion, change only a single word, and it will make perfect sense in the context of SSM.
Last edited by CaseyB; 12-03-2012 at 05:21 AM..
Reason: personal attack
When SCOTUS rules that SSM is constitutionally protected, a lot of religious fanatics and social conservatives heads are going to explode. I hope I am in a location that I can see that happen!
I want video - would make a great sermon for one of my Sunday services. Whackjobs and Bigots explode in fury. Oh could I have fun with that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
