Re: Initial impressions from the Japanese premier of Fahrenheit 9/11
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.
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
Fnews-brouse 1.9(20180406) -- by Mizuno, MWE <mwe@ccsf.jp>
GnuPG Key ID = ECC8A735
GnuPG Key fingerprint = 9BE6 B9E9 55A5 A499 CD51 946E 9BDC 7870 ECC8 A735