A question regarding gay marriage and the 14th amendment.

[white_wolf]

"...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Keep in mind I'm not a constitutional scholar, but it seems to me that if a state allows for straight couples to marry and adopt than by not allowing gay couples to do the same those states are denying equal protection under the law. Any thoughts on this issue?

[uppityperson]

1. I do not understand the logic either. I've heard "they have the same rights", but like anti-miscegen

anti-miscegenation laws, it is wrong.

[struggle4progress]

2. Maybe this website helps:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt14toc_user.html

As a general rule, the law "means" whatever the Courts can be convinced the law "means" -- and that varies according to time and place, the temperament of the judges, the political climate, the recent history of decisions, and so on

The work of having the law say what we want it to say, and then of having it understood the way we want it understood, and finally enforced the way we want it enforced, is an on-going project, eh? It depends on winning general ideological struggles, it depends on winning electoral campaigns, it depends on winning legislative floor fights and appointment fights, it depends on winning court cases -- it is not simply a matter of saying "This is how I read the Constitution"

[Paradoxical]

3. From what I understand, homosexuality is not yet a protected class.

And thusly does not fall under equal protection.

[unblock]

4. the 14th amendment is not limited to protected classes

protected classes have further protections under federal law, but the 14th amendment gives equal protection to all citizens.

[crickets]

6. Thanks for that clarification. -nt

[Paradoxical]

10. You wouldn't happen to have any sources for that?

Just wondering. I'd like to read them.

[unblock]

12. the constitution is clear enough on this one:

Article XIV
1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


the protections apply to "citizens" and to "any person".

most of the protections for specific classes refer to the civil rights act of 1964 or later federal legislation.



i'm not an actual lawyer, so i don't have better cites. ;)

[Motown_Johnny]

5. Agreed, but DOMA gives them something to hide behind

They consider it due process of law

[NYC_SKP]

7. If only gay Americans were corporations, then they might have these equal rights...

x(

It boggles the mind, doesn't it?

:patriot:

[cali]

8. yes. GLBT folks are being denied equal protection

that's been the basis of successful suits in several states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Vermont

[Bluenorthwest]

9. The anti equlity nuts are the Birthers of the left

They use slanders to question the legitimacy of other people's families and citizenship, slanders that have no basis, no proving facts, but rather mere 'belief' that the other is somehow not as good as they are. Ask them why, and they sputter 'I believe' and use language like Sanctified and Sacrament that have no meanings in civil law. What they mean is 'I don't like them, so I slander them.'
I'm done with the haters. They saw Trumps trip, and they did not learn from that. They can be 'anti equality for religious reasons' all they want. But they will not have my silence.

[jmowreader]

11. Anti-gay-marriage laws also violate Article IV, Section 1

This is the "full faith and credit" clause: each state is to give full faith and credit to the laws of every other state.

[Recovered Repug]

13. However,

And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

DOMA is supposed to fall under "the Effect".

[Zorra]

14. Thoughts: You are 100% correct. President Obama agrees also:

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Obama: DOMA unconstitutional, will stop defending federal gay marriage ban in court

In a major reversal, the Obama administration said Wednesday that the Defense of Marriage Act - which defines marriage as only between a man and a woman -- is unconstitutional.

And to make that point, the White House has instructed the Department of Justice to stop defending it in court.

"The President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement.

He added that the law "fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=439&topic_id=967984&mesg_id=967984