Kevin Wayne Williams wrote:

> 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?

Race and sex require different scrutiny levels. Race gets strict 
scrutiny while sex gets intermediate scrutiny.

- Kevin