Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Anima]

No, no, no ostracization.  From my end: lunch break, surprise invite to a minor league baseball game, just getting home.

You were right, of course, regarding minors and contracts; I was sort of ignoring that as a technicality, but it's probably worth noting like you did.  Now, I don't think it affects the particular subset of contracts relating to marriage, because 1) there's no question regarding the ability of, say, a ten-year-old to enter into a marriage contract, meaning that there's something special about those sorts of contracts, and 2) there's more to marriage than a contract (if there wasn't, there wouldn't be a supreme court case about it).

Now, regarding the equal protection clause statement, I do understand what you're saying.  However, I simply think your reading of the equal protection clause is too narrow.  Example: Poll taxes.  A facially equal requirement - everyone must pay a certain amount of money to register to vote - was deemed to violate the equal protection clause.  I think a reasonable parallel can be drawn.

And as for Scalia, well... I sure don't like most of his beliefs, and interpretations, and opinions... but I would not be surprised to learn he was, by many measures, certainly the most intelligent Supreme Court Justice.  I disagree with him 90% of the time, but he is one of the greatest writers of all time.

---

I'll talk about Alito later tonite or tomorrow

Wow!! Sounds like you had a fun and busy day!!!

1. There is no legal reason for a ten year old to not enter into a marriage contract. Particularly as there is precedence of such occurrence throughout the world and in the US. While the entering is generally with parental or judicial consent it may not to be said that neither may be granted or even granted regularly, particularly if an agreement to marriage is adult center recognition of a commitment and union between the party establishing communal property and inheritance of assets and is not procreation orientated to constitute an implicit agreement to consortium.

2. In accordance with the law marriage is a contract. It is for this reason that states may even define/restrict the marriage as states have the right to determine conditions and parties which may enter into contracts for services (which are done at common law of the given state). While the argument of the petitioners is that marriage conveys dignity the argument of the respondents is correct. While people may assign dignity to marriage the state itself does not seek to convey or withhold dignity by approving of marriages. If that were the case the state should prohibit undignified marriages (gold diggers for example) and only allow dignified marriages (like the sacred shotgun kind).

3. The poll taxes (Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections) were ruled a discriminatory violation of the equal protection clause because they failed to meet strict scrutiny. While the state had a compelling interest (in reducing fraud and an educated electorate) and the tax was narrowly tailored to effect only voters, it failed to be the least restrictive means to meet that interest or to meet that interest at all. When it came to reading tests (Lassiter v. Northampton Election Board) the court ruled they are not a discriminatory violation of equal protection clause because they satisfied strict scrutiny so long as there was no grandfather exemption for whites to avoid testing.

4. Regarding equal protection in terms of marriages needs only pass rational basis rather than strict scrutiny. Thus, the state needs only a legitimate interest in marriage (which it has) and the discrimination needs to be reasonably related to meeting that interest. (Note: rational basis is highly in favor of the state legislature so that the courts would not have to review and validate every law. The court needs only find a reasonable relation to the states interest no matter how tenuous!)

5. I generally disagree with Scalia as well. But damn can that man write!!

---

It's cutte how conservatives keep frenetically polishing the same bigot turds over and over, using a slightly different polish each time. Maybe in 100 years or so they'll evwentually find something resembling a coherent argument. 'Course, by that time we'll be drinking mojitos on Mars, bitches.
#drunkposting

I have it on good authority that with enough pressure, time, and shine that turd will make one hell of a diamond