On the contrary, it demonstrates that the ostensible purpose of a proposed law can be obviously divorced from the actual intent of the proponent. I gather Chimera’s intent is to mock the proposed law and similar laws, but all he need to satisfy a rational basis test is put in writing that the law’s purpose is to promote the raising of children.
It strikes me as commentary, of a sort.
My comment was likely not witty, nor urbane, but I can assure the gathered crowd that I was not issuing a legal opinion. I thought I was tossing off a comment intended to poke fun about how stupid Paul Clement’s proposal was.
Of course, I’ve probably made some other fundamental error of law in this, my most recent post. Those with a stick firmly up their ass will no doubt be along soon to inform me of my gross stupidity.
:dubious: Do they really? Gosh, that’s an uncanny coincidence.
Well, Bricker, if it will make you feel better, I’m quite willing to believe that some posters in this thread may have been mocking the proposed argument for its manifest unreasonableness while also not fully grasping the precise legal significance of the technical term “rational basis test”.
And all of them still sounded more intelligent, witty and sensible than you’ve done so far in this thread. Honestly, Bricker, at this point you’re simply failing to see the forest of reasonable scorn for the trees of legal minutiae.
Once again, this is a Pit thread, where nitpicking imprecise terminology is inadequate to rebut generous wrath. Sure, there’s nothing wrong with nitpicking other posters’ imprecise terminology even in a Pit thread, but it doesn’t mean that you’ve actually refuted anybody’s ranting. You were just so eager to show off the fact that you know the technical legal meaning of “rational basis test” while some other posters don’t that you’ve made a pompous pettifogging legal ass of yourself in the process.
I love this – said this to myself out loud a couple of times.
Then tried “pompous pettifogging politicizing pinhead”.
Sexual orientation has been found to be a quasi protected classification. Rational basis does not apply.
Let me repeat what another poster said to get to the core of this argument:
That completely blows away the “knocked up” argument. Completely.
He’s having alot of fun dodging questions.
Do you agree or disagree with this proposition:
“Any couple which cannot produce children should not be allowed to marry.”
Yes or no?
Sorry, just noticed that I wrote protected rather than suspect. Don’t know where that came from.
Rational basis would apply. Sexual orientation has been analyzed by SCOTUS under what appears to be a slightly different formulation - “rational basis with bite” - but the court was still ostensibly applying rational basis.
First, rational basis analysis doesn’t work here, because we are dealing with a fundamental right. Second, are you suggesting that shotgun weddings are a legitimate government interest and that opposite-sex-only marriage is reasonably related to that interest?
Actually, it can be even further divorced from the proponent’s intent. Under rational basis analysis, the government can propose a justification for the law after the fact regardless of whether or not there is any evidence that the legislature had it in mind. It just has to be vaguely plausible.
When did this shift from a debate about what the law ought to be to one about who would win a lawsuit over it?
I don’t think it’s a debate about who would win a lawsuit over it. Legal analysis of sexual orientation classification is hamstrung by SCOTUS’ fence-sitting over whether it’s a protected class or not. It’s important to remember that rational basis is a very low standard, and that Prop 8 will almost certainly be upheld if it is applied. I am just a little shocked that anyone, anywhere - much less the lawyers writing the briefs, and our friend Bricker - thinks the shotgun wedding argument isn’t goofy.
Not according to the Second Circuit in Windsor V United States.
When it was Brickerfied.
If it favors Republicans, then all that matters is whether a legal rationale can be found for it.
I break alot of rules like that.
For the record, Bricker is on record as supporting gay marriage rights.
He’s also on record as popping up prodigiously to show his pompous pettifogging pedantic legal ass whenever possible to promote perfect understanding of proper process and phraseology.
Whether or not that’s what anyone else is talking about.
Carry on!
Yes, let’s carry on. Where were we?
I think we were talking about people marrying their pets.
