necoandjeff wrote:

> "Kevin Wayne Williams" <kww.nihongo@verizon.nut> 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?

KWW