Forget Prop 8 In California. Texas Could Be The Battleground For Gay Marriage

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The Equal Protection Clause which, at its core, provides that it is unconstitutional to treat similarly situated people differently based on a group characteristic without compelling reasons for doing so. Ballot measures are not a reason to deny a class of people basic rights that are enjoyed by everyone else in the country.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Oye...Paul, there are countless examples of state issued licenses which are not valid in other states. For example, you could be a licensed dentist in Arizona, but you cannot practice in California without first being granted a license in that state. The Full Faith and Credit does mean that all state issued licenses must be honored in all states.

Second, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment most certainly does protect marriage as it applies to the individual. If a state allows an individual to marry (enter into a contract) with another individual and another state denies or says such contract is invalid or illegal, that is a violation of the 14th Amendment. That, IMO, is how SCOTUS will eventually rule on the constitutionality of gay marriages.

The 14th amendment isn't the "be all, end all" though when it comes to this scenario. The real question is going to come down to whether or not it would pass the "Lindsley test" if the 14th amendment is ever used as an argument. Those defending marriage defined as it is now actually have a strong argument, irregardless of divorce rate, etc. ESPECIALLY since now those defending marriage as it stands have the arguments from above to prove that a 'homosexual marriage' is no better in terms of a loving/lasting relationship. So while the 'equal protection' clause can be argued, they would still have to prove that there's an inherent benefit to society in allowing gay marriages and at the same time prove that the state's best interests are at hand as well. Personally, I don't think they have that argument under the 14th amendment. The Lindsley test can probably screw them over pretty easily to be honest.

That's really why I think the Full Faith and Credit is the best argument in situations like the OP and what should be challenged in a civil case like this.

[The_Dude 1,142]

The 14th amendment isn't the "be all, end all" though when it comes to this scenario. The real question is going to come down to whether or not it would pass the "Lindsley test" if the 14th amendment is ever used as an argument. Those defending marriage defined as it is now actually have a strong argument, irregardless of divorce rate, etc. ESPECIALLY since now those defending marriage as it stands have the arguments from above to prove that a 'homosexual marriage' is no better in terms of a loving/lasting relationship. So while the 'equal protection' clause can be argued, they would still have to prove that there's an inherent benefit to society in allowing gay marriages and at the same time prove that the state's best interests are at hand as well. Personally, I don't think they have that argument under the 14th amendment. The Lindsley test can probably screw them over pretty easily to be honest.

That's really why I think the Full Faith and Credit is the best argument in situations like the OP and what should be challenged in a civil case like this.

You used the "irregardless" in an argument. You lose.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

You used the "irregardless" in an argument. You lose.

oh shut up and don't say anything unless you can actually argue a point.

[The_Dude 1,142]

oh shut up and don't say anything unless you can actually argue a point.

Come on now, you can't use "irregardless" and expect to be taken seriously.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The 14th amendment isn't the "be all, end all" though when it comes to this scenario.

It isn't except in cases where individuals are granted certain protections under the law while excluding others. Granting the right to marry is an individual right, even though it involves two individuals.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

It isn't except in cases where individuals are granted certain protections under the law while excluding others. Granting the right to marry is an individual right, even though it involves two individuals.

As I said. See: "Lindsley test" when it comes to things like this.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

As I said. See: "Lindsley test" when it comes to things like this.

...if the classifications created by the law are reasonable and if they are not arbitrarily drawn, they may be compatible with the Constitution. It is not a very difficult test to pass. Using this standard of "restrained review," the courts only demand the existence of some set of facts that "reasonably can be conceived that would sustain" the need to treat people differently. Moreover, the burden of proof generally lies with the person challenging the fairness of the law; as the Supreme Court ruled in Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Company, "one who assails the classification in such a law must carry the burden of showing that it does not rest upon any reasonable basis, but is essentially arbitrary.

But the courts have also held that certain classifications are inherently suspect, and that laws employing these classifications must be subjected to more "strict scrutiny." All laws that differentiate between people on the basis of race, for example, have been designated by the courts as inherently suspicious and, consequently, the courts demand more elaborate proof that the classifications are necessary to achieve the state's legislative objective.

link

Homosexuality, like race, is not something someone chooses, therefore, any law that excludes someone based on sexual orientation is, IMO, a violation of the 14th Amendment.

Edited April 20, 2010 by El Buscador

[Obama 2012 1,714]

link

Homosexuality, like race, is not something someone chooses, therefore, any law that excludes someone based on sexual orientation is, IMO, a violation of the 14th Amendment.

Actually, to engage in a relationship of any type is a "choice"

While you cannot help what you're attracted to (be it homosexuals, pedophiles, etc..) you can control the action you take based on those urges.

Heterosexual people make the choice to engage in heterosexual relations, just as anyone else does with many other choices in every day life.

If marriage/relationships in general were a 'right' then everyone would be born with a pre-destined person to marry so they too could enjoy the benefits of being with someone else.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Actually, to engage in a relationship of any type is a "choice"

While you cannot help what you're attracted to (be it homosexuals, pedophiles, etc..) you can control the action you take based on those urges.

Heterosexual people make the choice to engage in heterosexual relations, just as anyone else does with many other choices in every day life.

If marriage/relationships in general were a 'right' then everyone would be born with a pre-destined person to marry so they too could enjoy the benefits of being with someone else.

Oye...Paul, you're going in circles now. Remember, we're talking about the Equal Protection Clause and when it applies. If a state recognizes the marriage of two individuals, then it cannot exclude other individuals from that same privilege. Gay marriage does pass the Lindsley test because homosexuality, like race, can not be a discriminatory factor of exclusion - homosexuality is not any more a choice than heterosexuality. I'm near certain this is how SCOTUS will rule on the matter. Even if opponents of gay marriage were to successfully amend the Constitution, that amendment cannot deny an individual's 14th Amendment rights.

Edited April 20, 2010 by El Buscador

[SMR 368]

Oye...Paul, you're going in circles now. Remember, we're talking about the Equal Protection Clause and when it applies. If a state recognizes the marriage of two individuals, then it cannot exclude other individuals from that same privilege. Gay marriage does pass the Lindsley test because homosexuality, like race, can not be a discriminatory factor of exclusion - homosexuality is not any more a choice than heterosexuality. I'm near certain this is how SCOTUS will rule on the matter. Even if opponents of gay marriage were to successfully amend the Constitution, that amendment cannot deny an individual's 14th Amendment rights.

Everybody has equal protection under the law. Heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage are different things that can be distinguished in a logical, legally satisfactory, and conclusive matter. Therefore, a law that applies to one and not the other is not prohibited by the 14th amendment.

Put another way, in a state where gay marriage is illegal, everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite gender (with certain caveats on age, consent, etc., but nonetheless these caveats apply to everyone equally) and no one has the right to marry someone of the same gender. That is equal protection for everyone. The fact that some people have different preferences really doesn't play a role here.