“Walker’s original nomination to the bench by Ronald Reagan in 1987 stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee because of controversy over his representation of the United States Olympic Committee in a lawsuit that prohibited the use of the title “Gay Olympics”.[4] Two dozen House Democrats, led by Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, opposed his nomination because of his alleged “insensitivity” to gays and the poor. Years later, the San Francisco Chronicle noted the irony of this opposition due to Walker’s sexual orientation.[5]”
Hmmm, I imagine you thought the same thing about District of Columbia vs. Heller, when the judge legislated from the bench when the popular gun control law was struck down. Right? I’m sure a search will quickly yield the same amount of outrage from you, eh?
At least my mum fucked live goats, unlike yours who got ass-fucked ans bukkaked by dead one.
Moreso, my mum’s whoring put brea on our tables, your mum couldn’t even get used toilet paper.
You know I completely understand why you’re so upset. If my mother was a whore and someone compared anti-SSM folks to whores, I’d be upset too. So for the record, I do apologize to the whores.
Not quite. There are inherent natural rights held to be self evident in American law. Some are enumerated, such as the bill of rights, and some not. To protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority, these rights can only be infringed with a damn good reason, or a compelling interest in legal speak, and only in so much is necessary for the compelling interest.
Denying SSM couples marriage licenses because they’re icky is not a good reason.
Please don’t read into this anything but the factual answer which follows, provided because you said you honestly wanted an answer.
The difference is that the federal constitution’s thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments speak directly to racial discrimination. From that, courts have decided that when a law creates a racial classification, it must be analyzed very strictly. Does the law advance a compelling governmental purpose? Does it do so in a way that’s narrowly tailored to accomplish its goal? Those are tough hurdles to pass, and restricting marriage to same-race couples didn’t pass those hurdles.
But the constitution is pretty silent on discrimination based on sexual orientation. So when laws that discriminate on that basis are analyzed, a much looser standard is used.
That is what makes Loving v. Virginia different than the current case.
Good, asshole. Remove that post immediately – if you’ve passed your five minutes, have a mod. delete it.
Because you have no right to post it. Yeah, the First Amendment gives freedom of speech and of the press. But guess what: an Internet message board is neither speech nor is it produced by a printing press. So by your textualist terms, you lose. Delete it.
Or consider that “shall not deprive… of life, liberty or property without due process of law” and “shall not deny … the equal protection of the laws” actually have meaning, and a judge is obliged to rule in accordance with their meanings.
The really weird thing is that Humpy is militantly anti-religious. So it’s not even that he doesn’t like gay marriage because it makes the baby Jesus cry, just that he finds it icky.
