# suck it you hateful bigoted degenerate whore-mothered goat-fucking trash(gay marriage ban overturned **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 5, 2010, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suck-it-you-hateful-bigoted-degenerate-whore-mothered-goat-fucking-trash-gay-marriage-ban-overturned/549214 "2010-08-05T02:00:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2010, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suck-it-you-hateful-bigoted-degenerate-whore-mothered-goat-fucking-trash-gay-marriage-ban-overturned/549214/181 "2010-08-07T03:16:43Z")
And . . . the thread has devolved into yet another debate on gay marriage. That’s not the topic of the thread, folks. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2010, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suck-it-you-hateful-bigoted-degenerate-whore-mothered-goat-fucking-trash-gay-marriage-ban-overturned/549214/182 "2010-08-07T03:20:48Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > _sob_ It’s like he’s witnessing slavery, with 100% more hot man-on-man action! I think I saw that movie. ---
**Author:** ![Meyer6](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/cc9497/32.png) [@Meyer6](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meyer6)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2010, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suck-it-you-hateful-bigoted-degenerate-whore-mothered-goat-fucking-trash-gay-marriage-ban-overturned/549214/183 "2010-08-07T03:46:45Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Honest answer. Too little time and not enough people wanting it. It took all the time since marriage was invented to have gay marriage and millenia for polygamy (actually polygyny) to almost disappear. First, if too little people want it then why is it something to worry about? Second, it’s not true that it has taken until now for gay marriage to come up. It’s an ancient concept although it has been forbidden often (pretty much always for religious reasons) - quote from the [wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage) page: > [@](#): > > The first historical mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire. For instance, Emperor Nero is said to have married one of his male slaves. > [@Ají de Gallina](#): > > also, some alteration are good, some are bad. So, why is this a bad alteration while miscegenation was not? Both result in marriage being ‘less special’, in that more people are able to enter into it. ---
**Author:** ![woodstockbirdybird](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/woodstockbirdybird/32/7905_2.png) [@woodstockbirdybird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/woodstockbirdybird)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2010, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suck-it-you-hateful-bigoted-degenerate-whore-mothered-goat-fucking-trash-gay-marriage-ban-overturned/549214/184 "2010-08-07T05:43:38Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > I’m no friend of no-fault divorce. > The arguments are good, you simply don’t want to hear them. > I didn’t use the phrase “sanctity of marriage”. No, by all means, I’d love to hear them. So far, I haven’t heard any good arguments from you in this thread. I’ve heard you say gay marriage will be a bad thing for society, but I haven’t heard why. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2010, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suck-it-you-hateful-bigoted-degenerate-whore-mothered-goat-fucking-trash-gay-marriage-ban-overturned/549214/185 "2010-08-07T07:40:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > > > **Bricker** , you did the read the part about due process of law, correct? Unless you’re claiming gay is a crime like murder, then your argument is very weak. > > Um… > > What? > > Yes, way to completely miss the point. OK, right you are: the murderer was a bad example, since he’s being deprived of liberty with due process of law. > > So let’s consider the gun owner who is required to have training before he can carry a concealed weapon. He’s being treated differently than someone who HASN’T had that training. The law is making a distinction between the two, and not treating them equally. Terrible, right? > > Also, the guy that wants to sell prescription drugs is being told he can’t, but his neighbor is allowed to!!! That is clearly unequal protection of the laws. Sure, sure – his neighbor has a degree in pharmacology and a license, but that’s no explanation for unequal treatment. > > _No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws._ > > The only thing “due process of law” applies to is depriving a person of life, liberty, or property. > > Obviously the government can make laws that permit unequal treatment of people… _if it has good reason to_. > > Now: how do our courts decided what “good” reason is? > > In other words, what sort of _scrutiny_ do we subject laws to? we have to have scrutiny of some kind; we cannot just say that no law permitting unequal treatment of people is permissible - can we? Nice woo, there. A person can get a pharmacy license, and assuming a person hasn’t committed felony, one can get a gun license. Whether or not you have a pharmacy license is not not immutable like sexual orientation is. Whether or not you can get a gun license is dependent on your personal choices. No one is born bared from gun ownership, or pharmacy biz for life. However gay people are born bared from marriage for life. If America was a caste society with a pharmacy caste you have to be born into, then maybe you’d have a point. However it isn’t, and if bullshit like that is what you tried in the court room no wonder you have so much free time for a message board these days. And the government merely thinking has a legitimate interest is not enough for a law to stick. It has to prove it’s claimed interest is compelling enough under the scrutiny of the court system. Which this verdict shows it failed to do so. Please tell me, what legitimate and compelling interest would the government have in banning gay marriage, in discriminating against law abiding people (who just want to grow old together and share what others share) solely based on an immutable personal characteristic? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2010, 8:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suck-it-you-hateful-bigoted-degenerate-whore-mothered-goat-fucking-trash-gay-marriage-ban-overturned/549214/186 "2010-08-07T08:14:19Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > By altering the definition of marriage (and I may be wrong in thinking it is not the right thing to do) will open the way for further alterations (specifically polygamy and polyamory, not dogs or chairs before you say it) that the societal reason for the privieleges afforded to this union. > Marriage as a special institution will seem less relevant and will be replaced by simple (or complicated) civil contracts. In that case, marriage should be destroyed. If it can only survive by bigotry then it is an evil thing and should be condemned and eliminated from both the law and the culture. Not that I think for one moment that allowing SSM will do anything but the opposite and strengthen the institution. ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2010, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suck-it-you-hateful-bigoted-degenerate-whore-mothered-goat-fucking-trash-gay-marriage-ban-overturned/549214/187 "2010-08-07T16:54:54Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > And . . . the thread has devolved into yet another debate on gay marriage. That’s not the topic of the thread, folks. Aww come on, man! They were juuuust about climax and you had to go and interrupt it. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2010, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suck-it-you-hateful-bigoted-degenerate-whore-mothered-goat-fucking-trash-gay-marriage-ban-overturned/549214/188 "2010-08-07T17:00:06Z")
> [@Meyer6](#): > > > [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > > > Don’t get hung up on the tax thing. Just come up with one tiny, insignificant way that having more people married could possibly inconvenience other people. “Damn. Sorry, honey, I knew you really wanted to get married in Sacred Heart but Jim and Bob have it booked up that weekend.” It doesn’t have to be a good reason. > > I sort of get what you’re trying to say, but it’s pretty clear that the anti-gay marriage crowd don’t have a problem with _more_ people getting married, they has a problem with _the wrong_ people getting married. what does a 60 percent divorce rate tell you about wrong people getting married ? ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2010, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suck-it-you-hateful-bigoted-degenerate-whore-mothered-goat-fucking-trash-gay-marriage-ban-overturned/549214/189 "2010-08-07T18:10:04Z")
> [@woodstockbirdybird](#): > > No, by all means, I’d love to hear them. So far, I haven’t heard any good arguments from you in this thread. I’ve heard you say gay marriage will be a bad thing for society, but I haven’t heard why. Seconded. Give specific examples of how gay marriage will harm society. “It changes the traditional definition of marriage” is a circular argument, so don’t bother with that one. Actual, demonstrable harm to people. The microphone is yours. _Go_. ---
**Author:** ![Meyer6](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/cc9497/32.png) [@Meyer6](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meyer6)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2010, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suck-it-you-hateful-bigoted-degenerate-whore-mothered-goat-fucking-trash-gay-marriage-ban-overturned/549214/190 "2010-08-07T18:47:52Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > > [@Meyer6](#): > > > > I sort of get what you’re trying to say, but it’s pretty clear that the anti-gay marriage crowd don’t have a problem with _more_ people getting married, they has a problem with _the wrong_ people getting married. > > what does a 60 percent divorce rate tell you about wrong people getting married ? I’ve never heard of a divorce rate as high as 60%. Regardless, I’m not sure if you’re trying to argue with me, but I wasn’t saying that I personally think they’re the wrong people, I was saying that that’s what the anti-gay marriage crowd thinks. I am very much a supporter of same-sex marriage and am happy to live in a country where it’s legal. Having said that, I also don’t care if people choose to get divorced. Neither one threatens the institute of marriage as it stands. ---
**Author:** ![42fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/b487fb/32.png) [@42fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42fish)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2010, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suck-it-you-hateful-bigoted-degenerate-whore-mothered-goat-fucking-trash-gay-marriage-ban-overturned/549214/191 "2010-08-08T01:58:50Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > By altering the definition of marriage (and I may be wrong in thinking it is not the right thing to do) will open the way for further alterations … Yeah, if we start altering marriage, one of these days wives will stop being their husbands’ chattels and then where will we be? ---
**Author:** ![3trew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/3/13edae/32.png) [@3trew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/3trew)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2010, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suck-it-you-hateful-bigoted-degenerate-whore-mothered-goat-fucking-trash-gay-marriage-ban-overturned/549214/192 "2010-08-08T02:31:00Z")
That must be some list of reasons same sex marriage will be bad for society, if it’s taking this long to compile. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2010, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suck-it-you-hateful-bigoted-degenerate-whore-mothered-goat-fucking-trash-gay-marriage-ban-overturned/549214/193 "2010-08-08T02:34:41Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > Certainly, see my amended post–strict scrutiny for every law. In other words, no “levels” of scrutiny at all, no one is more equal than anyone else. The problem there is that an overwhelming majority of laws will fail strict scrutiny and we don’t want that. Just as a matter of mechanics, Congress would be completely hamstrung by strict scrutiny of legislation traditionally subject to rational basis review. There are lots of areas where we really want Congress to have the benefit of the doubt, just to be able to get shit done, and that’s what rational basis does. Strict scrutiny places a burden on the government to prove the constitutionality of everything and requires the court to get all up in Congress’ business, because under strict scrutiny we presume that a law is unconstitutional; under rational basis the presumption works in the other direction and the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the law isn’t constitutional. Hence the current system which starts at rational basis but (claims to) ramp up the level of scrutiny only when certain red flags are raised. In practice, of course, there’s a bit of a shell game that goes on with standards of scrutiny, where a court can either manipulate the issue to create/avoid the need for strict scrutiny, or simply claim to be applying one standard and then apply another entirely. Edge cases, like what the hell do we do with sexual orientation – or really any issue where the proper result seems to be to strike a law down, but the standard of review seems to call for deference to the legislature – expose the ways that the scheme can be abused. But the idea that the majority of the time the courts should stay the hell out of the legislature’s way is a pretty critical one. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2010, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suck-it-you-hateful-bigoted-degenerate-whore-mothered-goat-fucking-trash-gay-marriage-ban-overturned/549214/194 "2010-08-09T14:11:43Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > By altering the definition of marriage (and I may be wrong in thinking it is not the right thing to do) will open the way for further alterations (specifically polygamy and polyamory, not dogs or chairs before you say it) that the societal reason for the privieleges afforded to this union. > Marriage as a special institution will seem less relevant and will be replaced by simple (or complicated) civil contracts. 1.) So what if people are allowed to marry more than one person simultaneously? They’re already allowed to do it sequentially. I highly doubt there’s some huge population of people who’d just love to live in a multiple marriage, if only it were legal. Assuming that everyone involved in the marriage is a consenting participant (and that includes being of an age to properly consent), why shouldn’t an adult be allowed to marry as many other people as they want? 2.) I think this country would be a lot better off if we did away with legal marriages altogether. “Marriage” should be something reserved for ceremonies. All legal privileges currently reserved for married partners would be transferred to civil unions. Any people, regardless of gender, who enter into these contracts would then get those privileges. Then we can start treating all partnered couples (or more, if we lift the restriction on how many people can enter such a contract together) equally, while religious conservatives can “defend marriage” by refusing to perform the ceremonies for any partnership they don’t approve of. > [@woodstockbirdybird](#): > > Really, if there’s any reasonable argument against SSM that doesn’t boil down to bigotry, I’ve yet to hear it. Maybe next you can feign surprise that you’ve never seen any solid evidence for unicorns. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2010, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suck-it-you-hateful-bigoted-degenerate-whore-mothered-goat-fucking-trash-gay-marriage-ban-overturned/549214/195 "2010-08-09T14:56:29Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > 1. I believe that this decision was completely idiotic and legally unjustifiable That contains approximately the same level of legal analysis as the proponents’ briefing and oral argument in this case, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. Can you point to the particular problems you have with the opinion as issued? > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > 1. I have no problem with gay marriage and would vote for it if given the opportunity. Without debating whether I believe you on this, why, with your great grasp of constitutional law, should this be an issue that requires a vote, when other basic civil rights don’t? ---
**Author:** ![heatmiserfl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df705f/32.png) [@heatmiserfl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heatmiserfl)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2010, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suck-it-you-hateful-bigoted-degenerate-whore-mothered-goat-fucking-trash-gay-marriage-ban-overturned/549214/196 "2010-08-09T15:22:37Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > There are lots of areas where we really want Congress to have the benefit of the doubt, just to be able to get shit done, and that’s what rational basis does. Strict scrutiny places a burden on the government to prove the constitutionality of everything and requires the court to get all up in Congress’ business, because under strict scrutiny we presume that a law is unconstitutional; under rational basis the presumption works in the other direction and the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the law isn’t constitutional. Hence the current system which starts at rational basis but (claims to) ramp up the level of scrutiny only when certain red flags are raised. > > In practice, of course, there’s a bit of a shell game that goes on with standards of scrutiny, where a court can either manipulate the issue to create/avoid the need for strict scrutiny, or simply claim to be applying one standard and then apply another entirely. **Edge cases, like what the hell do we do with sexual orientation** – or really any issue where the proper result seems to be to strike a law down, but the standard of review seems to call for deference to the legislature – expose the ways that the scheme can be abused. But the idea that the majority of the time the courts should stay the hell out of the legislature’s way is a pretty critical one. Another serious question (the GD thread has gone way beyond this). Why is sexual orientation an “edge case”? Seems to me that red flags are raised all over the place. Why should this follow a standard of review to defer to the legislature? Even more, the sketchiness of this resides in the fact that this was a ballot proposition as opposed to something that was properly argued by the legislative branch. On top of that, it was pushed by out-of-state religious interests. All the creepiness aside, I still can’t seem to get past the idea that sexual orientation is not a protected class. It is not at all like gender. It is like race. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2010, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suck-it-you-hateful-bigoted-degenerate-whore-mothered-goat-fucking-trash-gay-marriage-ban-overturned/549214/197 "2010-08-09T22:18:20Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > Um… > > > > What? > > > > Yes, way to completely miss the point. OK, right you are: the murderer was a bad example, since he’s being deprived of liberty with due process of law. > > > > So let’s consider the gun owner who is required to have training before he can carry a concealed weapon. He’s being treated differently than someone who HASN’T had that training. The law is making a distinction between the two, and not treating them equally. Terrible, right? > > > > Also, the guy that wants to sell prescription drugs is being told he can’t, but his neighbor is allowed to!!! That is clearly unequal protection of the laws. Sure, sure – his neighbor has a degree in pharmacology and a license, but that’s no explanation for unequal treatment. > > > > _No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws._ > > > > The only thing “due process of law” applies to is depriving a person of life, liberty, or property. > > > > Obviously the government can make laws that permit unequal treatment of people… _if it has good reason to_. > > > > Now: how do our courts decided what “good” reason is? > > > > In other words, what sort of _scrutiny_ do we subject laws to? we have to have scrutiny of some kind; we cannot just say that no law permitting unequal treatment of people is permissible - can we? > > Nice woo, there. > > A person can get a pharmacy license, and assuming a person hasn’t committed felony, one can get a gun license. Whether or not you have a pharmacy license is not not immutable like sexual orientation is. Whether or not you can get a gun license is dependent on your personal choices. No one is born bared from gun ownership, or pharmacy biz for life. > > However gay people are born bared from marriage for life. If America was a caste society with a pharmacy caste you have to be born into, then maybe you’d have a point. However it isn’t, and if bullshit like that is what you tried in the court room no wonder you have so much free time for a message board these days. OK, so you’ve just defined a level of scrutiny: “Does this law create a class of pesons from onwards?” Congratulations. I was trying to rebut **Zeriel** ’s “No levels of scrutiny” argument, and you’re doing a good job rebutting it too… you must have levels of scrutiny of some kind, because the law must create classes of some kind. ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2010, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suck-it-you-hateful-bigoted-degenerate-whore-mothered-goat-fucking-trash-gay-marriage-ban-overturned/549214/198 "2010-08-09T22:43:23Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] (Said some stuff that doesn’t matter to me. I am replying direclty to his post to get his attention) [/QUOTE] Giving you the benefit of the doubt here and asking one more time that you reply to the following: Why intermdeiated scrutiny for sexual orientation? Why is sexual orientation more like gender than race? Put differently, what is the rationale behind subjecting race to strict scrutiny and gender to intermediate scrutiny, and why should the latter apply to sexual orientation? Does the rationale have something to do with the fact that sometimes it’s approppriate to discriminate between genders/sexes (no dudes in the ladies’ room; there’s a presumption that young children belong with their moms) whereas it’s hard to think of a reason it would be appropriate to discriminate on race/ethnicity/nationality (happened once, right?)? If so, when is it appropriate to discrimnate based on sexual orientation? ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2010, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suck-it-you-hateful-bigoted-degenerate-whore-mothered-goat-fucking-trash-gay-marriage-ban-overturned/549214/199 "2010-08-09T23:16:02Z")
I’m not **Bricker** , but I really like the question. The answer depends in part on whether you want a doctrinal answer or a straightforward practical one. Legally speaking, it’s basically what you said. As a matter of law there are no fundamental differences between the races, so strict scrutiny applies. We presume that there is not a good reason to treat one race differently from the other. With gender, though, the Supreme Court has formally recognized that there are “real differences” between men and women that a court is allowed to take into account when scrutinizing a law - which means, by extension, the legislature could be justified in taking those differences into account when passing the law. That’s why intermediate scrutiny isn’t strict scrutiny. The other answer is historical and contextual in nature. Basically, it’s hard to get a majority of the Court to find a new protected class. There was a big push from the 50s to the 70s to provide more protection against gender discrimination, but it never reached the level of support that the civil rights era eventually had on the Court (probably understandably considering what a terrible place we were coming from in terms of race politics). Ruth Bader Ginsburg wanted to use strict scrutiny in gender cases, and fought hard for it, but couldn’t get a majority. Then she switched tacks and focused instead on saying, well, fine, but not rational basis. There was enough support for that idea to set up the intermediate scrutiny scheme, and that’s what we still have. And there you have it. That’s both the rationale and, I think, the realistic view of _why_ we landed on intermediate scrutiny. Your other question, or really your only question, about why isn’t sexual orientation more like race, is one that nobody else is going to be able to give you a definitive answer to. It’s not like either, really, just like race isn’t like gender and gender isn’t like child illegitimacy and none of those are like old age; they all just get lumped into one pile or another. Ultimately, the deciding factor is just going to be how many members of the Supreme Court are ready to make a giant step (toward strict scrutiny), how many are willing to take baby steps (something more strict than rational basis – see [Romer v. Evans](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romer_v._Evans)) and how many aren’t willing to do shit. ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2010, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suck-it-you-hateful-bigoted-degenerate-whore-mothered-goat-fucking-trash-gay-marriage-ban-overturned/549214/200 "2010-08-09T23:22:25Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > I’m not **Bricker** , but I really like the question. > > The answer depends in part on whether you want a doctrinal answer or a straightforward practical one. > > Legally speaking, it’s basically what you said. As a matter of law there are no fundamental differences between the races, so strict scrutiny applies. We presume that there is not a good reason to treat one race differently from the other. With gender, though, the Supreme Court has formally recognized that there are “real differences” between men and women that a court is allowed to take into account when scrutinizing a law - which means, by extension, the legislature could be justified in taking those differences into account when passing the law. That’s why intermediate scrutiny isn’t strict scrutiny. > > The other answer is historical and contextual in nature. Basically, it’s hard to get a majority of the Court to find a new protected class. There was a big push from the 50s to the 70s to provide more protection against gender discrimination, but it never reached the level of support that the civil rights era eventually had on the Court (probably understandably considering what a terrible place we were coming from in terms of race politics). Ruth Bader Ginsburg wanted to use strict scrutiny in gender cases, and fought hard for it, but couldn’t get a majority. Then she switched tacks and focused instead on saying, well, fine, but not rational basis. There was enough support for that idea to set up the intermediate scrutiny scheme, and that’s what we still have. > > And there you have it. That’s both the rationale and, I think, the realistic view of _why_ we landed on intermediate scrutiny. Your other question, or really your only question, about why isn’t sexual orientation more like race, is one that nobody else is going to be able to give you a definitive answer to. It’s not like either, really, just like race isn’t like gender and gender isn’t like child illegitimacy and none of those are like old age; they all just get lumped into one pile or another. Ultimately, the deciding factor is just going to be how many members of the Supreme Court are ready to make a giant step (toward strict scrutiny), how many are willing to take baby steps (something more strict than rational basis – see [Romer v. Evans](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romer_v._Evans)) and how many aren’t willing to do shit. Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I guess I was intrigued by the confidence displayed in **Bricker** ’s asserton that intermediate scrutiny should apply. That seemed to come from somewhere other than " how many members of the Supreme Court are ready to make a giant step ." If, for example, he were to agree with your first paragraph, then I would love to know what he sees as the “real differences” between heterosexual people and homosexual people inasmuch as that makes sexual orientation more analgous to sex/gender than to race. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suck-it-you-hateful-bigoted-degenerate-whore-mothered-goat-fucking-trash-gay-marriage-ban-overturned/549214.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suck-it-you-hateful-bigoted-degenerate-whore-mothered-goat-fucking-trash-gay-marriage-ban-overturned/549214.md?page=11)