"Kevin Gowen" <kgowenNOSPAM@myfastmail.com> wrote in message
news:2ptvmqFns2kdU6@uni-berlin.de...
> 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.

nor will it.

> > 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.

You seem to be pretty fond of this analogy between sex and genetics. Would
you care to distinguish between the court's differing treatment of
discrimination based on race and discrimination based on sex then, since
both are based on genetics? Trying to expand equal protection to incestuous
relationships because it is "genetic" is rather absurd logic don't you
think?