Re: Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses
If "it was enacted" passes rational basis, then rational basis isn't a test in the first place.
Right, but it only need be legitimate interest, not actually be a government interest.
States are defining marriage as between a man and a woman. This is clearly a distinction of gender.
Yes, but other than those that would argue otherwise, making a distinction about marriage between any other variety would be unheard of, further, outside of sex orientation, the distinction by itself does not discriminate. Both men and woman are limited by the gender equally. Like I said, it is a distinction without a distinction by not calling it sexual orientation, which, by
itself is a distinction separate from gender.
Just say "activist judges." It says what you want to say in fewer words. It's the exact same handwave everyone else is trying to make, and it is bogus. They aren't doing it "because they don't like them." They are doing it because their best judgment says the laws are a violation of the 14th amendment.
Yes, and I believe using gender as the pretext to any 14th amendment challenge is being incorrectly applied. If you use sexual orientation, then, at least you have a true distinction. The Pro-SSM crowd doesn't want that though, for obvious reasons. Same reason Walker didn't want it, and gifted the petitioners, "gender" instead.
The constitution is the supreme law of the land. It doesn't matter how many people vote for a law. If it violates the constitution, it violates the constitution.
Right, and discrimination based on sexual orientation does not violate the constitution, unless, one can successfully argue that homosexuals are a suspect class requiring protection.
The issue is whether or not your moral disapproval is basis alone for denying someone else a choice.
The answer is no.
I don't have a moral anything, unless by moral approval you mean that I have arrived at my opinion based solely on what I see, and have observed in nature for every living creature that lives, and has EVER lived. Some argue the minutia of animals being gay (Like as if they know), some argue the evolutionary advantages for a population to have a percentage of homosexuals, although I find their arguments unpersuasive, I suppose one might see it that way. I however, see no upside to homosexuality. I see it, if innate, to be a mutation that has persisted, but ultimately will be extinguished by the natural order of things. On the other hand, I mostly interpret the evidence that exists today as reflective of a mostly, if not entirely, a socio-pathological condition that, for whatever reason causes an individual to favor a homosexual lifestyle over that of a heterosexual one. I know you disagree, but again, I am unconvinced by any arguments I've seen in favor of a biological cause to homosexuality. Some say, well so what? You are entitled to that view, and I am not suggesting we go hunt down the homosexuals, but as a society, we shouldn't be encouraging it. It serves no upside to us a species in any meaningful way, so why encourage the behavior?
Same-sex marriage bans do not pass the rational basis test. "It was enacted" isn't good enough.
That's not what I said. It passes the RBT because gender is not the issue. Walker and the judges after him have all followed this narrative. Gender is not the issue, sexual orientation is the issue, and in that regard, it does pass RBT, IMO.
I suppose we'll find out soon enough.
Tim-