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.
You need to read it again.
"this Court has invoked equal protection principles to invalidate laws imposing sex based inequality on marriage"
What even is a sexual orientation if you are not making a sex based judgement to begin with?
Look they cited the equal protection clause, which by the way doesn't speak to sex, male and female, either. There was no sex based inequality in original marriage, males and females could freely marry. The only inequality arguably was a sexual orientation based inequality. Marriage was an arrangement catering to heterosexuals. But there was no Constitutional or law requiring sexual orientation equality.
The Court can word it however it wants with its sex -based logical fallacy, but it effectively created gay sexual orientation as a class to be protected.
It's a nuanced distinction, as are so many things in law.
The Court didn't say it was unconstitutional to prohibit homosexuals from getting married. They said it was unconstitutional to prohibit two men, or two women, from entering into a contract (marriage) that you allow a man and a woman to enter into. That is obviously discriminating against the sex of one of the parties in question.
Are people being willfully obtuse? It’s not that hard a concept. If Bill and Sue can marry each other, but Joe and Jim cannot then that’s discrimination based on sex. Simple and clear.
Besides, most every state was moving to write laws to accommodate same sex marriages. If the courts had just left it alone, most every state would have same sex marriage laws today.
There are federal rights, privileges and protections implicit with being legally married, though. State marriage laws do nothing to address those.
So if you have such a broad interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause equally protects every classification of person under the sun, then how is it equal the unmarried have no way of claiming the rights, privileges and protections the married can? Why can't a person jointly file their taxes with their roommate and claim Social Security survivor benefits etc. That's inequality .
What I'm saying is the Court didn't stay with its own long precedent or to the original meaning and intent of the 14th amendment. So whether or not it was the "right" thing to do, it was incorrect for the Court to be the one doing it.
The first case to test the 14th amendment in the supreme court was Plessy, where the justices stated that the 14th amendment applied to only political and civil rights.
The supreme courts very job is to rule based on the constitution why would they be the incorrect court to rule on the constitutionality of a law?
So if you have such a broad interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause equally protects every classification of person under the sun, then how is it equal the unmarried have no way of claiming the rights, privileges and protections the married can? Why can't a person jointly file their taxes with their roommate and claim Social Security survivor benefits etc. That's inequality .
If there was legislation prohibiting roommates to marry, you’d have a point. Since there’s not, you don’t.
"The Supreme Court extended workplace protections nationwide last week for the LGBTQ community, ruling 6-3 that a landmark civil rights law barring sex discrimination in the workplace applies to gay, lesbian and transgender workers.
But the court's majority, led by conservative Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, did not close the door on religious exemptions, saying "other employers in other cases may raise free exercise arguments that merit careful consideration."
I don't believe they will try to overturn the ruling, only bring up the issue about religious exemptions, where people refuse to marry gay couples or provide a wedding venue, etc. because of their religious beliefs.
But if they allow religious belief to trump public accommodation laws, then anyone can claim religious belief to deny service to anyone. Churches are one thing and are not considered public accommodations, but a business in Mississippi has already refused service to interracial couple based on "religious belief".
Are people being willfully obtuse? It’s not that hard a concept. If Bill and Sue can marry each other, but Joe and Jim cannot then that’s discrimination based on sex. Simple and clear.
And Sue and Jane cannot. So the basis is sexual orientation, not whether one is male or female.
Besides, we shouldn't assume the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause prevents discrimination based on sex. It didn't even give women the right to vote, and the Constitution had to be amended some 50 years later.
Besides, most every state was moving to write laws to accommodate same sex marriages. If the courts had just left it alone, most every state would have same sex marriage laws today.
As with abortion, the ultra right wing dominated SCOTUS will work to chip away at these rulings. They will allow many more restrictions making abortion very difficult. They will allow more religious exemptions in order to discriminate against the LGBTQ community. A majority of the court will not be happy until America goes back to the dark ages.
That's why is imperative that when Biden wins and Dems take the Senate, we finally grow a backbone and pack the court w/ good judges that will keep the activist conservatives on that court from undoing all the great progress made.
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.
.