Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
It's not about an obligation or not. SCOTUS can't just say 'sorry guys, NJ gay marriage case is too damn important for you guys to handle, we're taking the case'. It's never worked that way and it's not supposed to. I realize what you're saying, that they can choose to hear it or not, but they can only make that choice once a request for cert has been made to them.
|
Well yeah... I was never debating that.
Quote:
Absolutely. It's a legal term that means basically that when the government writes laws that favor one group of individuals over another, the disfavored group may be a "suspect classification" and the government carries the burden of proving that such discrimination has a compelling state interest, under strict scrutiny for race, and intermediate scrutiny for gender.
In other words, if you're going to write laws that discriminate, you have to prove that they're necessary. It's a limitation on the power of the government to discriminate against minorities with little or no political power.
|
Correct! I bolded the pertinent part of your post. As we all know, states have an immediate interest in marriages. SCOTUS has already (Indirectly) stated that the issues of sexual orientation and gay marriage fall under the veil of suspect classifcations and thusly states can refuse to grant homosexuals the right to marry if they so choose. It's discrimination within the constitution and one of the many "Social injustices" upon which our society is built.
There is no "Equal protection under the law" when it comes to gay marriage.
Edit: Most of the laws that discriminate aren't necessary. They're just "There". The state only needs to prove that it has a compelling interest in the issue at hand.