<p>TG446:</p>
<p>Ha ha! </p>
<p>Reminds me of a New Yorker cartoon I saw about a year ago. Couple in their living room. Man looks up from his newspaper: “Gay marriage . . . haven’t they suffered enough?”</p>
<p>I’m sorry I gave you the impression I’m stupid enough to enter into this “debate” again, Sam Lee. :rolleyes:</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Way to cut civil rights jurisprudence in half. Yes, you’re correct that sexual orientation has not been held to be a suspect classification. But marriage (and divorce) are fundamental rights under current law (see Turner; see Boddie). If a fundamental right is being denied, you don’t need a suspect classification to strike the law down, and you certainly don’t need a constitutional amendment. The prisoner plaintiff in Turner and the pauper plaintiff in Boddie weren’t members of suspect classes. They didn’t need an Equal Rights Amendment equivalent forbidding discrimination on the basis of prisoner status or income. They won because the state can’t impose barriers to the exercise of fundamental rights unless the law can survive strict scrutiny. </p>
<p>This is mentioned in Loving, too, btw. Since the Lovings had a slam dunk equal protection argument, people often overlook the court’s finding that a due process/fundamental rights analysis was an independent and adequate ground for the decision (see section II of Loving).</p>
<p>HH,</p>
<p>I didn’t think you were stupid; but if you think that’s how some people think of you, then that’s your problem. lol!</p>
<p>I was rather beaten into submission on this subject, Sam Lee. I was forced to acknowledge all sorts of terrible personal attributes of which I was previously unaware apparently (I’ll spare you the list) during the course of this “debate.” ;)</p>
<p><a href=“http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061103/ap_on_re_us/haggard_sex_allegations[/url]”>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061103/ap_on_re_us/haggard_sex_allegations</a></p>
<p>Interesting how some of the most active and vocal opponents of gay rights are actually closeted.</p>