Quote:
Originally Posted by strandinthewind
Exactly. Some of these can be contracte into if you have the money. But, most cannot and that contract can be contested while the automatic rights cannot. Moreover, why should gay people have to spend thousands of dollars to obtain the handful of rights that are actually obtainable that way when straight people get it for free and, once again, based solely on a religious idea.
Once again, the 14th Amendment says:
When the state makes a law that is not applied to all people the same and it does not have a valid (the def. varies) reason for doing so, the law is invalid  [U]See/U] Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), which held that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Many, but not all, scholars and jurists think that the application of the 14th Amendment in Lawrence coupled with the case of Loving v. Virgina (citred earlier) and the separation of church and state clause in the First Amend. and the related cases, will result in the Supreme Court finding giving rights to one group over the over based solely on a religious idea is anything but equal protection under the law. |
You said, "When the state makes a law that is not applied to all people the same and it does not have a valid (the def. varies) reason for doing so, the law is invalid " Exactly my point. Gay marriage is too exclusory because it doesn't apply to everyone. The only real solution is to deregulate marriage, or as in the case of California, have the citizens vote on it in individual states.