C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
- Apr 28, 2011
- 77,744
- 37,863
Actually, Loving was about equal treatment under the law. The VA SCOTUS said interracial marriage was unnatural, the US SCOTUS said that didn't matter and you had to treat people equally under the law.
I never claimed the US SCOTUS said anything about naturalness or un.
You said >> "The SCOTUS decided that it really didn't fucking matter who thought something was "unnatural" when it came to ruling on LAW."
So on the one hand you first say they "decided" it. Now you say you didn't claim they said it ("unnatural"). But you claimed they decided it. How can one decide, without saying ? Did they use sign language maybe ? Did they hand each other written notes ? Sounds like you DID claim they said something about something being "unnatural", and now you're trying to wiggle out of it.
Lesson to be learned - if you can't back up what you say, don't say it.
In the final analysis, the SCOTUS didn't say a word about homosexuals or the naturalness or unnaturalness of their condition. The only thing I see them having said
that pertains to queers is what is stipulated earlier about compelling interest >>>
So once again, for those who seem to want to avoid the truth >>>
The question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right. The Supreme Court has dictated the application of different tests depending on the type of classification and its effect on fundamental rights. Traditionally, the Court finds a state classification constitutional if it has "a rational basis" to a "legitimate state purpose." The Supreme Court, however, has applied more stringent analysis in certain cases. It will "strictly scrutinize" a distinction when it embodies a "suspect classification." In order for a classification to be subject to strict scrutiny, it must be shown that the state law or its administration is meant to discriminate. Usually, if a purpose to discriminate is found the classification will be strictly scrutinized if it is based on race, national origin, or, in some situations, non U.S. citizenship (the suspect classes). In order for a classification to be found permissible under this test it must be proven, by the state, that there is a compelling interest to the law and that the classification is necessary to further that interest.
Interesting phrase that "compelling interest" is. Does a state have a compelling interest, for instance, to keep queers out of classrooms ? Of course it does. It has a interest to prevent queers from spreading their sick perversions to kids with young impressionable minds. Few better and stronger examples of compelling interest have ever existed in American society.
You're using the very same philosophy of government that statist liberals do.
Incorrect.
Liberals advocate for a consistent, Constitutional application of 14th Amendment jurisprudence, where the state must meet the burden of proving that its desire to deny gay Americans their civil liberties is rationally based, supported by objective, documented evidence, and pursues a proper legislative end and failing that, as is the case with states seeking to deny gay Americans their equal protection rights with regard to marriage law, any such measures would be invalidated by the Federal courts.
This is one of many examples of liberal advocacy of limiting the power and authority of the state, and protecting and enhancing the liberty of the people.
That is not the case with the conservative poster you quoted, however, who advocates for expanding the power and authority of the state at the expense of the liberty of the people, where the state may capriciously and un-Constitutionally deny gay Americans their civil liberties, in violation of the rule of law.