Actually, it's not so meaningless, unless one has no rational foundation for their argument, and therefore needs desperately to ignore existing rules for heightened judicial scrutiny.I am familiar with "strict scrutiny"
It is the same as regular scrutiny, only stricter.
That's all you need to know about it because it is an absolutely meaningless term.
Strict Scrutiny is in no way meaningless. Your dismissal of judicial levels of review and other legal concepts implies that your argument is without a basis is reason.
With cyclical logic like that, you must be a hit on the playground.I read what you posted. I paid attention. I did not pay attention to what you did not post.
Sorry Charlie, once again you illustrate that you don't understand basic legal concepts.The relevant portion of the case you cited, which you quoted in your post (suggesting you also thought it was the relevant portion, if I may say), was that rights of speech, religion, etc. cannot be voted on. You repeated it again just now.
Those rights have been voted on. That's how they became part of the Constitution.
"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts."
Before the law was made, the right did not exist. Only a fool would say that rights cannot be made or protected with laws. The purpose of the ruling was to decide when, or if, the government could infringe upon those legal protections.
Sorry Charlie, a compelling state interest must be served before rights are infringed. Are you attempting, foolishly, to imply that restricting marriage to being between a man and a woman does not prohibit same sex couples from marriage. Of course it does, only a fool would claim otherwise. At question is whether such a restriction serves a compelling state interest. Clearly, it does not, or you would be able to offer up the interest and easily put an end to the debate.Compelling state interest:
You are the one advocating change in restriction of marriage. The showing of a state interest is your burden.