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