Religion of any brand has never been a legal justification to discriminate. I'm not aware of any anti-jewish legislation that escaped review. In the 1920's there were moves to outlaw parochial schools, which culminated in the supreme court decision
Pierce v. Society of Sisters - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
And Obergefell is consistent with that. Religion is no defense. 135 SCt. 2602
And G5000 points out why that is. ALL Religions tend to be hypocritical and engage in selected readings of sacred texts.
Fast forward to Loving. VA argued that the court should only look to see if the law was rational. That is both black and white were equally prohibited from marrying, so the argument went that the law was race neutral. So, the argument went, the state could rationally argue that allowing inter-racial marriage would lead to social change and a lack of social stability. Honestly, it's impossible to not agree with the argument that allowing inter-racial marriage did result in social change, but I'd contend the change was for the better. But, that's not really the issue. A state does have a legitimate issue in preserving social order.
However, in Loving the scotus rejected the argument that the law was race neutral. "In these cases, involving distinctions not drawn according to race, the Court has merely asked whether there is any rational foundation for the discriminations, and has deferred to the wisdom of the state legislatures. In the case at bar, however, we deal with statutes containing racial classifications, and the fact of equal application does not immunize the statute from the very heavy burden of justification which the Fourteenth Amendment has traditionally required of state statutes drawn according to race." 388 US 1, 9.
The criticism of Obergefell is that sexual orientation was given the same protected status as race and religion. That is, unless gays have the same protected status of race and religion, the law has to be upheld if it some Kentucky legislator in Kentuckpodunkville could rationally think that "some" hetero marriages would fail because a he or a she might want to go gay.
Then the Court says marriage is traditionally the keystone of society ... but states cannot deny the same benefits of civil laws (estate, taxes, healthcare, etc) to a gay couple as a straight couple. Well, thanks, but we already knew that.
In short, it's social jurisprudence.
Pierce v. Society of Sisters - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
And Obergefell is consistent with that. Religion is no defense. 135 SCt. 2602
And G5000 points out why that is. ALL Religions tend to be hypocritical and engage in selected readings of sacred texts.
Fast forward to Loving. VA argued that the court should only look to see if the law was rational. That is both black and white were equally prohibited from marrying, so the argument went that the law was race neutral. So, the argument went, the state could rationally argue that allowing inter-racial marriage would lead to social change and a lack of social stability. Honestly, it's impossible to not agree with the argument that allowing inter-racial marriage did result in social change, but I'd contend the change was for the better. But, that's not really the issue. A state does have a legitimate issue in preserving social order.
However, in Loving the scotus rejected the argument that the law was race neutral. "In these cases, involving distinctions not drawn according to race, the Court has merely asked whether there is any rational foundation for the discriminations, and has deferred to the wisdom of the state legislatures. In the case at bar, however, we deal with statutes containing racial classifications, and the fact of equal application does not immunize the statute from the very heavy burden of justification which the Fourteenth Amendment has traditionally required of state statutes drawn according to race." 388 US 1, 9.
The criticism of Obergefell is that sexual orientation was given the same protected status as race and religion. That is, unless gays have the same protected status of race and religion, the law has to be upheld if it some Kentucky legislator in Kentuckpodunkville could rationally think that "some" hetero marriages would fail because a he or a she might want to go gay.
Then the Court says marriage is traditionally the keystone of society ... but states cannot deny the same benefits of civil laws (estate, taxes, healthcare, etc) to a gay couple as a straight couple. Well, thanks, but we already knew that.
In short, it's social jurisprudence.
