Edit: about your last paragraph: DOMA is almost certainly going to be overturned(the vast majority of legal scholars all agree with this, including most conservative ones). When DOMA is overturned the federal government will have to recognize those married as married, which carries an insane number of benefits under federal law. Civil unions do not carry those federal benefits.
AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.
I wonder, back in the day, when the gubberment mandated that all states must adhere to various civil and anti-discrimination rights, how many people would have voted against it.
My great grand pappy would roll over in his grave to see a black man walking down the street holding a white girls hand. Imagine him standing in line at a McDonald's, with people of all races, eating at the same place. He would have a heart attack.
Some things never change in humanity I suppose.
Progress may be slow but it is inevitable.
It's GREAT to be me. --- "45% liberal/55% conservative"
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy" until you can find a gun.
Prop 8 supporters wanted to retain the long-held traditional definition of marriage.
Once successful, they were amendable to modifications in civil union law to expand protections for gay couples equal to married straight couples.
The constitution is thereby respected with regard to commited couples.
When the election is over and we open our eyes, it will sadly be too late to wonder what the hell just happened.
ln equal protection analysis, rational basis review "is not a license for courts to judge the Wisdom, fairness, or logic of legislative choices." Heller, 509 U.S. at 319 (internal quotation marks omitted). A classification "neither involving
fundamental rights nor proceeding along suspect lines is accorded a strong presumption of validity." Id.
"Such a classification cannot run afoul of the Equal Protection Clause if there is a rational relationship between the disparity of treatment and some legitimate governmental purpose." Id. at 320.
The government is not required to "actually articulate at any time the purpose or rationale supporting its classification"; rather, a classification "must be upheld against equal protection challenge if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
Additionally, the government "has no obligation to provide evidence to sustain the rationality of a statutory classification." Id. The measure at issue "is not subject to courtroom factfinding and may be based on rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
"[T]he burden is on the one attacking the legislative arrangement to negative every conceivable basis Which might support it Id.
The parenting rationale will not be the question before the Supremes. Prop 8 will be.The parties argue about whether this analysis subjects Proposition 8 to heightened scrutiny rather than rational basis review. ln my view, while Plaintiffs may give a correct accounting of California law, it does not necessarily follow that the optimal parenting rationale is an illegitimate governmental interest, because it contradicts existing laws on parenting and the family.
I don't know the case either, but just taking Smith at his word, it seems to be on point. A denial of a license to a homosexual couple seems analagous to an Amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.lndeed, in Baker v. Nelson when faced with a Fourteenth Amendment challenge to a decision by the Supreme Court of Minnesota denying a marriage license to a same-sex couple, the United States Supreme Court dismissed "for want of a substantial federal question." There is good reason for this restraint
We'll see. Should be fun!
Last edited by LuckyDan; 02-07-12 at 07:42 PM.
Last edited by LuckyDan; 02-07-12 at 07:48 PM. Reason: to add "With regard to marriage..."