See, you can't even figure out when you dive bomb or when what you post to is irrelevant.
Try reading Atlas' post to you... there is no gender, racial or sexual component to the FUNDAMENTAL right of marriage.
Let me teach you a little bit about how a Constitutional case should be read (of course, I'm not an expert, but I'd say I've had a few more minutes of education in the area than you have).
1. If something is found to be a fundamental right, any law limiting that right is subject to strict scrutiny. That means government must have a really good reason for limiting the right.
1.a. When dealing with suspect classifications in laws (particularly those governing fundamental rights) there is an even higher burder to justify any intrusion on the right.
2. Marriage has been found to be a fundamental right. (go back and read Loving, because THAT is the proposition for which is stands).
3. Race, gender and sexuality are suspect when they are singled out for limitation of any right.
Conclusion: One may not single out homosexuals in order to deny them the fundamental right of marriage recognized for the rest of us, regardless of race, religion, etc.
And THAT is how one analyzes a constitutional issue with LOGIC and not emotion.
I seem to be correct as hell about that NY bar exam.
IRRELEVANT, eh? yea, it SURE IS irrelevant to point out that Loving was decided upon the racism that violeted the 14th amendment - an amendment that was the product of ETHNICITY rather than SEXUAL ORIENTATION. Loving doesn't say that there is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to marriage or it would have struck down laws in Utah as well. It states ONLY and SPECIFICALLY that states could not restrict the unions between races. Nothing more, Nothing less. Further, states HAVE excercised their TENTH AMENDMENT RIGHT since loving to exclude a whole list of unions, legally, despite Loving. You are trying to wrap Loving around gay marraige much like you would assume that the interstate commerce clause gives you the jurisdiction to stick your hands in any other state issue. It's a ******* joke that a lawyer would make this arguement.
1. Marriage is not a fundemental right. Further, the fed wont enforce it since it is a right of the state to determine locally. but, just to humor your silliness, Even if it were challenged in the supreme court it would lose because you have only the ASSUMPTION that gay marriage is a right rather than Constitutional precedence. We won't be legalizing polygamy any time soon and, unless you can find some astrix in federal non-discrimiation laws specifically adding sexual oreitnation to those protected status, you lose.
1a. Burdens can be argued. Loving had a constitutional foundation for their arguement. What do you have besides an OPINION?
2. No, Loving did not declare every circumstance of marriage a right. Again, see polygamy. Loving made a statement on the RACIAL element of prohibition of marriage. Nothing more, nothing less.
3. Race, gender and WHAT? SEXUALITY did you say?
Did you really think I wouldn't call you on this? Provide a source that says orientation is a protected status, Jillian. It's cute watching you act like a laywer dancing around the facts but im afraid im going to have to call shenannigans on ya here. Sexual orientation is no more a protected status than hair color is. what YOU THINK is suspect means two things: jack and shit. Your opinon about the motivation to restrict marriage just isn't all that impressive.
Conclusion: You need to go back to school if that is the epitome of your legal expertise. Again, I hate to get all Scalia on ya but you, ma'am, are full of shit.
