A coerced vote, by our “Radical Republican Overlords”. You do realize that voting on those reconstruction amendments by the southern states was essentially at gunpoint, right?
Text of the 14th amendment:
The text of the 14th amendment specifically and directly enfranchises males 21 years of age, and by implication says that the franchise does not extend further.
No offense, but you must have been asleep before the election. That or our (small) army of volunteers didn’t give you any literature on Prop 2. I don’t remember the text precisely, but it was widely known that this was the inevitable result of it, and at least the group I was working with made that point a centerpiece of our argument against Prop 2. Perhaps the proponents promised not to act on the power they were granting themselves (this is my interpretation of what you said in the quote) but I would think that was clearly disingenuous.
But c’est la vie. I guess a lot of people felt like the one woman did who told me, “We don’t support the gays.” Anything to stop the homos, I guess, for some people.
Bricker, if race based classifications were only required to survive a rational basis test, would they survive?
I don’t understand Bricker’s back breaking deference to the will of the majority at all costs, in contravention to a natural reading of the equal protection clause. Whether he recognizes it or not, this majoritarian thinking is a form of judicial activism all by itself.
I subscribe to Justice Kennedy’s belief, that the people who drafted the 14th amendment knew that times can blind us to certain truths and laws once thought neccesary and proper can eventually serve only to oppress. I don’t believe that the Radical Republicans intended only a narrow interpretation of the amendment to apply only to blacks. Otherwise they would have just said “No person shall be denied equal protection on account of race.” They simply said “No person.”
How do you explain Romer then. The ‘presumptively reasonable’ rational basis analysis seems to have been dealt a pretty heavy blow, there. The Court has specifically said that animus against homosexuals in Colorado does not meet the rational basis standard. Indeed, none of the supposed justifications put forward were seen as meeting that standard.
So, have we moved to a new ‘rational basis with teeth’ test for ALL rational basis analysis, or are homosexuals viewed as receiving a degree of heightened analysis? Or is Romer just flat out wrong? Because, as far as I can see, it is the law of the land.
On a slight tangent, would you agree or disagree that homosexuals meet the tests required to achieve heightened scrutiny?
Finally, I think people looking for a legislatve solution are missing the very purpose of the constitution. It’s not there to protect majority rights (which are protected pretty damn well through the democratic system) as much as it is to be a check on the democratic system, and a protection for the rights of those who find themselves in an unpopular minority. There was no reason to wait for legislative action to grant interracial couples the right to marry, because such legislative action might never have occurred. The absence of popular support in no way reflects on the importance of the advance of constitutional rights. If the will was there to legislate against discrimination, there would be little need left for the Fourteenth Amendment.
No, that is consistent with what I’ve been saying. For example (my bolding):
And I’m OK with whatever amendment process the people decide for their consitition. You should not, though, that in manu (most?) cases, states require consitutional amendments to be voted on by the people-- either in addition to legislative voting, or in lieu of. MA’s process works that way, as does CA’s.
Poor editting. Should’ve been:
You should note, though, that in **many **(most?) cases…
Whatever you like. Doesn’t affect the topic of the thread anyway.
villa is correct, anyway, in pointing out that legislative (or referendum) action is not necessarily going to happen at all, and if they do it can be against the Constitution and the principles behind it. Sometimes the courts do have to intervene. They’re a political branch of government with a defined political role just like the executive and legislative, of course - it’s naive to think they operate inside a sealed garret, unconnected to the outside world.
I think you are mixing two things-- statutes and constitional amendments. Yes, statutes should be open to judicial scrutiny. But consituational amendments aren’t and shouldn’t be. The danger to SSM (in the long run) is not statutory laws being enacted, but constitutional amendments. And that’s what IS happening left and right. This is NOT going to come down to courts ruling on DOMA type laws. That’s chump change in this whole process. It’s going to come down to “the people” and/or state legislatures passing constutional amendments and making judical srutiny a moot point.
There’s a reason race-based classifications are inherently suspect.
It’s because race-based classifications are inherently suspect. 
I have great difficulty imagining ANY race-based classification that could survive a rational basis test, but I’d want to hear the specifics before I bit. Perhaps some regulation creating classifications based on sickle-cell anemia, or something of that nature. I’m reaching, here…
State constitutional amendments absolutely are subject to federal constitutional scrutiny. State amendments may also be subject to state constitutional scrutiny, depending on the constitution (for example, at least two anti-marriage amendments are under attack, and one has been struck down, for violating the “single subject” constitutional requirement for amendments in the respective states).
What are you talking about? You’ve spent several pages in GD defending the idea that “tradition” alone is sufficient to meet the rational basis test. Since it [was] traditional to segregate races, etc., surely the burden would have been met.
Yes. Pineapple on pizza is an abomination.
But pineapple on pizza is iiiiiicky! If we don’t outlaw it, our children might have to experience the grossness that is watching someone eat a pineapple pizza! And we might have to explain to them that, although it is morally and culinarily wrong, the deviants actually like it! Won’t somebody please think of the children? 
To be upheld under Rational Basis, a law must merely have a rational relation to some legitimate end. (Heller v. Doe)
In Romer, the state argued that the “legitimate ends” were: respect for other citizens’ freedom of association, especially landlords or employers who have personal or religious objections to homosexuality; and the state interest in conserving resources to fight discrimination against other groups.
The Court found that the wording of Amendment 2 was so borad that it went well beyond simply meeting those needs. Had Colorado fashioned a law that simply accomplished those ends, it would have been sustained under Rational Basis. Instead, Colorado’s law forbid “…all legislative, executive, or judicial action at any level of state or local government designed to protect the status of persons based on their ‘homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships.’” The law, in other words, had such a far-reaching impact that it did NOT bear a rational relationship to the legitimate end the state claimed.
Not strict scrutiny, but I agree that sexual orientation is probably deserving of Craig v. Bore’s “intermediate scrutiny.”
So what does “self-governance” mean? Does it mean that ultimately, though we may elect legislators and executives, we are ruled by unelected, robed masters?
Oh.
I read the question in the present tense.
When? Applied today? I stand by my previous answer.
Applied in 1940? Sure, race-based classifications would probably meet the rational basis test.
For pity’s sake. :rolleyes:
All that you’ve done differently in the GD thread is use many more words to express the same lack of thought.
Sad. Just sad.
BUT TRUE.
I’d throw a ‘fuck you’ right back, Otto, but for the fact that I don’t feel it appropriate to hurl such vitriol at a complete stranger you happen to disagree with but who doesn’t directly affect you. You don’t live in MI, do you? You won’t have to worry about her ever being your president, she’s a born Canadian.
This is MY governor; I voted her in myself and didn’t take the Granholm bumper sticker off my car until August when I replaced it w/ a Kerry one. She’s not just trying to follow the letter of the law as the majority of MI voters asked her to, (though I voted against Prop 2), she’s trying to save some money. See, MI has an enormous budget shortfall, to such an extent that she’s agreed to take a pay cut. Schools are losing money, infrastructure is suffering big cuts, and ugly as it is, this is a way to save a lot of money. So consider that maybe she doesn’t hate gay people, hmmm? She’s been picketed and spat at near her own Catholic church for her tolerant views, and even suffered the humiliation of being removed as an auction prize at a Catholic school’s fundraiser.
If our governor told us it was okay not to follow a law we didn’t agree with, it would send a wrong and dangerous message.
This just goes to show how ridiculous this understanding of the rational basis test is. So long as you have a history of oppressing people, you can continue to do so. It’s only novel forms of oppression that are unconstitutional. Quite the lovely system.
Absolutely true. And if you want to raise this to the SCotUS level, and if that body rules in favor of SSM you will see an anti-SSM federal constituational amendment passed faster than you can say “Thanks, Justice Stevens”.
Absolutely true. And it was stupid of those folks to think they could get away with it. How fast do you think it will take them to fix it next time around? I suspect that a new, anti-SSM only amendment would pass with a larger majority since some people, at least, probably didn’t vote for it because it also included anti-civil union wording.