Not true.<quoted text>
But everyone IS treated equally under the law.
A man is allowed to marry a woman, but a woman isn't.
A woman is allowed to marry a man, but a man isn't.
Unlike you. LOL!Look Rose, people with an actual law degree
They are now. Gay marriage is allowed in NY. Try to keep up, stupid.who's opinion matter's- unlike yours- explained it to you.
"Plaintiffs cite Loving for the proposition that a statute can discriminate even if it treats both classes identically. This misconstrues the Loving analysis because the antimiscegenation statute did not treat blacks and whites identically—it restricted who whites could marry (but did not restrict intermarriage between non-whites) for the purpose of promoting white supremacy. Virginia's antimiscegenation statute was the quintessential example of invidious racial discrimination as it was intended to advantage one race and disadvantage all others, which is why the Supreme Court applied strict scrutiny and struck it down as violating the core interest of the Equal Protection Clause.
In contrast, neither men nor women are disproportionately disadvantaged or burdened by the fact that New York's Domestic Relations Law allows only opposite-sex couples to marry—both genders are treated precisely the same way.
I pass gas better educated than you are. You don't have a single earned degree. Admit it.As such, there is no gender [*16]classification triggering intermediate scrutiny.
Nor does the statutory scheme create a classification based on sexual orientation. In this respect, the Domestic Relations Law is facially neutral: individuals who seek marriage licenses are not queried concerning their sexual orientation and are not precluded from marrying if they are not heterosexual. Regardless of sexual orientation, any person can marry a person of the opposite sex. "- Hernandez v Robles
You really should get your GED before you attempt to interpret the law Rose.