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!feed.news.tiscali.de!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 14:43:18 -0400 Lines: 52 Message-ID: <2pugm7Fns2kdU8@uni-berlin.de> References: <2okt14FbdbunU16@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> <10jk2tpje6v7d42@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 aJzMIDc6u9o1/Kt+v8fQvgX2Vzgcibjx6/yzRejUvwtTjBCgcm User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (Windows/20040803) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en In-Reply-To: <10jk2tpje6v7d42@news.supernews.com> Xref: ccsf.homeunix.org fj.life.in-japan:17884 Kevin Wayne Williams wrote: > 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. What the court has held is that if a law >> discriminates based on sex, it must be substantially related to an >> important >> governmental interest. > > > I don't get Con Law until next year, so I will ask before I continue: > isn't the reasoning behind the determination that gender and race > discrimation requires the heightened scrutiny level based on the concept > that gender and race are innate? That the person suffering from the > discriminatory behaviour has had no opportunity or choice to rectify the > "problem", making a governmental reaction to it a denial of due process? Race and sex require different scrutiny levels. Race gets strict scrutiny while sex gets intermediate scrutiny. - Kevin