Marriage equality: A question of equality rather than liberty

[RagZ]

Ahhh but is it not discriminatory to give prilvledges, through the government, to one specific class of people at the exclusion of another class?

It is. Your misunderstanding is in the assumption that it's unconstitutional for the government to discriminate. That's incorrect. The government not just can, but DOES, discriminate against groups on a routine and continual basis. We do it every day in the military with regards to female combat troops, and that's even with something of a higher scrutiny. We do it with age all the time in this country...drinking limits, curfews, etc. We do it to classes of people such as felons.

The question is not whether or not the Government can discriminate in a general sense. That is already well known; yes, they can. The question is whether or not a specific discriminatory action rises to the level of unconstitutionality based on its place within the various teirs of scrutiny of the equal protection clause. The majority of those things I listed above are lowest teir, or "rational scrutiny", classes that is rather easy for the government to discriminate against.

And that's even going against clearly definable classes, especially those routinely grouped together, rather than more ambiguous things as "people who love each other". Its quesitonable that'd even reach a rational basis.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Ahhh but is it not discriminatory to give prilvledges, through the government, to one specific class of people at the exclusion of another class?

It is. Your misunderstanding is in the assumption that it's unconstitutional for the government to discriminate. That's incorrect. The government not just can, but DOES, discriminate against groups on a routine and continual basis. We do it every day in the military with regards to female combat troops, and that's even with something of a higher scrutiny. We do it with age all the time in this country...drinking limits, curfews, etc. We do it to classes of people such as felons.

The question is not whether or not the Government can discriminate in a general sense. That is already well known; yes, they can. The question is whether or not a specific discriminatory action rises to the level of unconstitutionality based on its place within the various teirs of scrutiny of the equal protection clause. The majority of those things I listed above are lowest teir, or "rational scrutiny", classes that is rather easy for the government to discriminate against.

And that's even going against clearly definable classes, especially those routinely grouped together, rather than more ambiguous things as "people who love each other". Its quesitonable that'd even reach a rational basis.

Nah i wasn't getting into the legality or constitutionality just the discriminatory part

If i dont say something I'm usually not thinking it

 

[RagZ]

Nah i wasn't getting into the legality or constitutionality just the discriminatory part

If i dont say something I'm usually not thinking it

gotcha. Then again, for me...I've got no issue with the idea, in a general sense, of the government discriminating.