The Equal Protection Clause Guarantee...

The Equal Protection Clause Guarantees the Right to Marry

There are 7 comments on the www.cato.org story from Mar 5, 2013, titled The Equal Protection Clause Guarantees the Right to Marry. In it, www.cato.org reports that:

The constitutional case for marriage equality need not go further than the sweeping and universal text of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause: "No State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.cato.org.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#3 Mar 5, 2013
Jake wrote:
What does, equal protection under the law, have to do with two queers marrying? Nothing.
Maybe you should've been a lawyer, or a judge. That's some ironclad logic, thar. It's a shame to waste it on the internet, where no one can appreciate your genius.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#4 Mar 5, 2013
Jake wrote:
What does, equal protection under the law, have to do with two queers marrying? Nothing.
you'll get over it

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#5 Mar 5, 2013
Yeah, now all we have to do is convince Roberts or Kennedy or Scalia or Alito or Thomas that such is the case!

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#7 Mar 5, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Yeah, now all we have to do is convince Roberts or Kennedy or Scalia or Alito or Thomas that such is the case!
"Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom." (Justice Kennedy in Lawrence.)

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8 Mar 5, 2013
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003):“[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education.… Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#9 Mar 5, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
"Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom." (Justice Kennedy in Lawrence.)
I agree, Kennedy is our best bet out of the 5; though I can see Roberts agreeing to overturn DOMA as well.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#11 Mar 5, 2013
Marriage it is a fundamental right of the individual.

The only eligibility requirement for fundamental rights is being human.

While churches may place any restrictions they choose on their own ceremonies, the government can only restrict fundamental rights when a compelling and legitimate justification can be demonstrated and withstand judicial scrutiny.

Most can agree with the courts that reasonable restrictions include age, ability to demonstrate informed consent, and not being closely related, or currently married.

Gender is not a restriction. There is no legitimate reason to require one of each.

Procreation ability has never been a requirement for marriage, and therefore fails as a legitimate restriction. Yet even that irrational excuse for discrimination ignores the fact that gay people can and do reproduce, and are raising children either biologically related or adopted.

Denial of equal treatment under the law provides nothing to opposite sex couple families. It only harms same sex couple families needlessly.

Gay couples are seeking to be treated equally under the laws currently in effect, in the remaining states that do not yet recognize their marriages, and by the federal government.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 49 min cpeter1313 46,379
News 2nd Circuit allows sex bias suit based on gay s... 1 hr Cordwainer Trout 2
News Columbus Bans 'Ex-Gay' Therapy To Minors 1 hr Gov Corbutt of th... 3
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 2 hr River Tam 25,305
News Why does the Texas criminal code still ban "hom... 2 hr The Troll Stopper 34
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 3 hr The Troll Stopper 5,418
News Catholic Church Waging War on Women and Gays (Oct '07) 10 hr Junket 217,519
News 'Reading a book can't turn you gay,' say author... 10 hr Johnny 117
More from around the web