Path: ccsf.homeunix.org!ccsf.homeunix.org!news1.wakwak.com!nf1.xephion.ne.jp!onion.ish.org!news.daionet.gr.jp!news.yamada.gr.jp!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!newsfeed.icl.net!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail From: Kevin Gowen Newsgroups: fj.life.in-japan Subject: Re: Initial impressions from the Japanese premier of Fahrenheit 9/11 Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 09:53:30 -0400 Lines: 48 Message-ID: <2ptvmqFns2kdU6@uni-berlin.de> References: <2okt14FbdbunU16@uni-berlin.de> <2ot3jkFd9vt9U30@uni-berlin.de> <2ou8pdFd9vt9U39@uni-berlin.de> <2p4fp6Fgnl9cU3@uni-berlin.de> <9o8Xc.11666$xM2.11429@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com> <2p4te9FgunrvU4@uni-berlin.de> <4OoXc.11910$st2.510@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com> <2p7b0vFh6ku5U4@uni-berlin.de> <2pab50FirknhU1@uni-berlin.de> <4iWXc.12638$mG2.1544@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com> <2prsmtFokp6tU1@uni-berlin.de> <3E4_c.15558$7I2.5235@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com> <2ps4taFokp6tU3@uni-berlin.de> <2pskheFns2kdU1@uni-berlin.de> <10ji9fmmqnu8df2@news.supernews.com> <10jidiaqlhamo7e@news.supernews.com> <10jim7q91uns33c@news.supernews.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 8Kv/fNZ8DfL6on4frvkBaAB8bRn40Do6m1zHom8ApbobzvoYdh User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (Windows/20040803) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en In-Reply-To: Xref: ccsf.homeunix.org fj.life.in-japan:17879 necoandjeff wrote: > "Kevin Wayne Williams" wrote in message > news:10jim7q91uns33c@news.supernews.com... > >>necoandjeff wrote: >> >> >> >>>I'm not interpreting the fourteenth >>>amendment in a vacuum. There is a fair number of supreme court rulings > > that > >>>have enlightened us all as to what "No State shall...deny to any person >>>within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" really means. > > You > >>>may disagree with the supreme court's interpretation, but I'm not so >>>ambitious as to want the supreme court to completely overturn its prior >>>jurisprudence on the subject. >> >>I agree the Fourteenth has not traditionally been interpreted that way >>... it hasn't traditionally been interpreted to permit same-sex marriage >>either. Most people would argue that you are aiming to expand it. > > > There's no tradition about it. The issue of same sex marriage hasn't come > before the supreme court. Yes. However, I don't think incestuous marriage has, either. > What the court has held is that if a law > discriminates based on sex, it must be substantially related to an important > governmental interest. The only question that I believe needs to be answered > is whether allowing heterosexuals to marry while not allowing homosexuals to > marry is discrimination based on sex. I believe it is. Others would > disagree. But if it is, someone has to come up with an important > governmental interest in preventing such marriages (I don't believe there is > one), or the states will have to start giving out marriage licenses to > homosexual couples when requested to do so. What is the standard of review for discrimination based on genetics or familial relationships? Please bear in mind that sex is genetically determined. - Kevin