Sure I can. In every case, the law is applied based on your age.

Big deal. I can write a law based on race, but it will apply to men and women equally. Is that equal treatment? Of couse not. Equal means equal, not "equal except for variable X"

Now you must be kidding. Are you saying that you can write a law that is unconstitutional just so long as there is a really good reason?

Read the First Amendment. I have the right to free speech. How come, I cannot yell fire in a crowded theater?

---

_______________________________________________

So if I'm understanding you, you think that minimum age drinking laws and laws against yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre are unconstitutional?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

"I can write a law based on race, but it will apply to men and women equally. Is that equal treatment?"

No, it's not "equal treatment", but since the Constitution doesn't guarantee "equal treatment", who gives a shit? The reason you can't discriminate in certain areas with regard to race is because we have passed laws that say so. It's not because of the Constitution. The only right that the Constitution explicitly guarantees regardless of race is the right to vote.

"Read the First Amendment. I have the right to free speech. How come, I cannot yell fire in a crowded theater?"

Ok, that's fair enough. There are several "exceptions" to various Amendments, especially the free speech stuff. However, that doesn't change the fact that laws can be applied equally to everyone, yet not give everyone the same status.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Nope...

---

_______________________________________________

"I can write a law based on race, but it will apply to men and women equally. Is that equal treatment?"

No, it's not "equal treatment", but since the Constitution doesn't guarantee "equal treatment", who gives a shit?

Fine... is it equal protection?The reason you can't discriminate in certain areas with regard to race is because we have passed laws that say so.

Ever hear of Brown v. Board of Education?

However, that doesn't change the fact that laws can be applied equally to everyone, yet not give everyone the same status.

Uh.. no. By definition that is impossible.

---

_______________________________________________

"Ever hear of Brown v. Board of Education?"

Of course I've heard of it. The Supreme Court didn't say that the Constitution explicitly guaranteed equal treatment for blacks. they said that the Constitution guranteed the students equal protection under the laws that established public schools. Notice that private schools, restaurants, etc were not covered. that's because the law said every kid had to go to school, but it didn't say every person got to go to a restaurant. For all that stuff, you got the civil Rights act of 1964. That law is what covers discrimination, not the Constitution.

"Uh.. no. By definition that is impossible"

Um, no, it isn't. You were treated equally under the law against drinking underage as I was treated, and as your kids were treated, and as my brother was treated, and as my dad was treated, etc, etc (providing the law was in effect before you were 21 of course)

All people are treated equally under that law. Every person is prohibited from buying alcohol before they are 21, and are allowed after they are 21. Not equal status, but equal protection and application.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

The government can regulate medical procedures under the interstate commerce clause. There is the occasional quake who gets around the FDA by operating strictly inside state boundaries.

I guess you are serious that no one ever challenged the laws. Up until recently most states had laws that held sodomy illegal. Those were challenged all the time, and as recently as 15 years ago, upheld by the Supreme Court. Not only was same sex marriage illegal, even homosexual sex was illegal. Try again though.

You can make whatever arguments you want in favor of gay marriage. I probably wouldn't argue with you because there are certainly some sound points to be made. What you can't argue is that homosexual marriage and regular marriage are the same. They simply are not. Two things that are fundamentally different are just not equal.

Free speech rights conflict with the right to live when Fire! is shouted in a crowded theatre. That is pretty basic and well settled.

There is a real good thread on polygamy on this forum. Some "research" still is required to fill in the gaps, but you will soon find polygomy advocates who will advocate polygomy as a constitutional right by way of logic that will soon be indistinguishable from gay marriage advocates. Santorum is right about that prediction too. Take the word polygamy out, and the arguments apply word to word for incest.

He is probably wrong about beastality and abuse of minors because of the consent issue.

When O'Conner wrote Lawrence, she knew the logic led inevitably to gay marriage and from there to incest and polygomy. So she included a specific statement that her logic did not lead there. I guess she figured that solved something.

Just a few months later, the MA Supreme Court created a gay marriage right, citing Lawrence.

If you go down a path that solves your particular policy preference, you really don't have a right to complain when someone else uses the exact same logic to solve their particular policy preference, even if you abhor it. Chickens come home to roost.

I wote (over 2 posts):

"I can write a law based on race, but it will apply to men and women equally.... is that equal protection?

You wrote

Supreme Court didn't say that the Constitution explicitly guaranteed equal treatment for blacks. they said that the Constitution guranteed the students equal protection under the laws

Which of course is correct, and also basically answers my question with the predictable "of course it would not be equal protection" So I dont understand your initial objection.You were treated equally under the law against drinking underage as I was treated....

Well, you can phrase it that way, but clearly the law does not treat the under 21 crowd the same as the over 21 crowd. But maybe this is a special case, since everyone starts out under 21, and most get older. Can you think of other equal protection but not equal status laws that dont involve age?

Anyway, back to my earlier point, I believe you're mistaken as to how laws have been decided by the courts to be consistent with or inconsistent with the 14th Amendment. There's not such thing as an "equal protection with unequal status" test. What there is/was, although the language changes over time, was the notion that the goverment may treat different groups differently (eg. unequal status) if there was a compelling reason to do so, and that the reason wasn't arbitrary or "invidious." I think that basic idea has remained constant, what has changed how carefully the courts have scrutinzed laws, and forced the state to really convince them that the differential treatment was warranted.

---

_______________________________________________

"clearly the law does not treat the under 21 crowd the same as the over 21 crowd"

No, it treats all people equally. All people are allowed to buy alcohol once they turn 21. I don't see where you're getting lost. As I said, it treats all people equally, but applies a different status to certain groups. Keep writing, you're making my point for me.

"Can you think of other equal protection but not equal status laws that dont involve age?"

You are not allowed into a women's lockerroom. All people are equally protected against members of the opposite sex coming into their locker room, but clearly women and men have a separate status.

"So I dont understand your initial objection"

I'm not sure which "initial objection" you mean. My point was that Equal Treatment based on race is not guranteed by the Constitution, it is guranteed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If the population chose to do so, they could pass a law reversing that act. Of course it wouldn't fly, but, strictly speaking, it wouldn't be unConstitutional.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

My point was that Equal Treatment based on race is not guranteed by the Constitution,

Equal treatment base on race by the governent is protected by the 14th Amendment.

---

_______________________________________________

aj... I've read your "constitutional aurgment" posts. And, I find them frequently lost in details that ignore many basic and general concepts (or at least they are perverted without sound reasoning)... and, I've watch you get shot down as a result... or, I should say... in my opinion, they appear to have been shot down...

You constantly can't or don't answer basic questions... you constantly fall back on complex replys... you refuse to answer the simple questions with simple answers. Somehow, you perceive that as being "below" your abilities to communicate.

As I see it... most posters which have taken the time to answers your posts with detail have won the debates (contrary to what you might think... being the constitutional genious you percieve yourself as...). There are much smarter and less time constained individuals than I when it comes to making better and more sensible counter points to your opinion.

Trio_jeepy may have replied with a request for you to explain your assertion... but, I already knew that would be useless. I simply posted SOME agreement to a few points that Trio made... you simply wanted to insult our posts and counter-posts.... now, is that any way for a legal genious as yourself to act?

FWIW Joe Moya

what gays challenged a marriage law? none that i know of. and every court upholding sodomy laws was dead wrong in my opinion. and it has very little to do with gay rights. the gov't, in my opinion, never had a right to regulate that. speaking of, what was their basis for regulating sex?

is a straight marriage the same a gay marriage? no. BUT the right of a consenting adult to marry another consenting adult is EXACTLY the same whether it's straight or gay. that's where equal protection comes in. there is no logical argument that can be made that shows the right of a gay to decide who they want to marry is any different than that of a straight person.

where's the right to live when someone yells "fire!", but there isn't actually a fire written in the constitution?

i've been through the polygamy argument. i've explained my position as to why i see differences. it might ultimately prove an untenable position. if so, i wouldn't be overly bothered by it.

and i am not complaining if they employ the same logic to get to polygamy. it's not my bag, wouldn't bother me if they went that way. but right now there are differences between polygamy and homosexuality unless there is better research to show otherwise, in my opinion.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

Then help me out, jhc, I'm not following your reasoning to whatever your point is.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

"Equal treatment base on race by the governent is protected by the 14th Amendment"

Well, what I said is that equal treatment based on race is not guranteed by the Constitution. I never mentioned equal treatment by the govt. If I want to start a club and not let in blacks, nothing in the Constitution says I can't. What the XIVth says is that no State can deny a person in its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws. It doesn't say that the federal govt has to afford equal protection. It also doesn't say that everyone has to be treated equally. It says that a state can't decide that a black man can't file charges against an assailant, but a white person can.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

My point is that slowguy's definition as originally stated (So long as any given law is applied equally to all people, that requirement is met. It doesn't say every citizen should have the same exact status or rights under the law. Just that the laws, once passed, must be applied equally.) simply isn't right. Although that may his personal interpretation of the 14th Amendment, that's not how the test that the courts have used to determine if a law violates the equal protection amendment. Here's the test

http://en.wikipedia.org/...een_Plessy_and_Brown

Strict scrutiny (if the law categorizes on the basis of race): the law is unconstitutional unless it is the "least restrictive means" of serving a "compelling" government interest.

Intermediate scrutiny (if the law categorizes on the basis of sex): the law is unconstitutional unless it is "substantially related" to an "important" government interest. Note that in past decisions "sex" generally has meant gender.

Rational-basis test (if the law categorizes on some other basis): the law is constitutional so long as it is "reasonably related" to a "legitimate" government interest.

---

_______________________________________________

and to give some context to the definitions provided by jhc, if strict scrutiny is applied, the law is finished. there has never been a law that passed this test.

intermediate has been satisfied in gender cases for things based on actual differences between males and females--i.e. physical differences.

anything follow rational basis will likely be upheld. i am unaware of the court striking something down using a "pure" rational basis test.

and that's where the battles in these cases lie. what will the group be classified as because that dictates the level of rationale the state must provide in order to have a regulation upheld.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

The Supreme Court upheld Georgia's ban on sodomy in the Hardwick case in 1986. "Any claim that these cases nevertheless stand for the proposition that any kind of private sexual conduct between consenting adults is constitutionally insulated from state proscription is unsupportable."

Your point was that gay marriage bans were never tested. That point is absurd since gays couldn't even get over the ban on gay sex, much less gay marriage until recently.

I don't think the federal government would have a basis to regulate consentual sex. Those matters are left to the states.

The start of this thread was a contention that Santorum is evil because of the horrible predictions he has made about the results of the ruling that ultimately came down in Lawrence. You have now conceded that the logic in Lawrence leads to gay marriage and maybe polygomy, so I guess I made my point. It sounds like incest gets swept in too since it just about "the right of a consenting adult to marry another consenting adult."

There is the obscure passage in the preamble about insuring Domestic tranquility. The speech you refer to is really more of an action in this context that can lead to harm.

A Constitution is a framework of principals. If extended too far, various principals will conflict with each other, so the Founders created courts to resolve these potential conflicts and legislatures to balance rights. You know this, so don't be argumentative.

There is no end to equal protection arguments once you open them up along the lines you describe.

MA Supreme Court held that the bans on gay marriage failed the rational basis test. They held 4-3 that the state provided no reasons whatever for the ban to continue. One would think if there were no reason whatever then the 49 other states and the three other judges would agree, but I digress.

I have no problem with people asserting gay marriage is a desireable public policy. I have a real problem with four judges asserting that there is no reason whatever to oppose gay marriage. That is just silly.

"Although that may his personal interpretation of the 14th Amendment, that's not how the test that the courts have used to determine if a law violates the equal protection amendment"

And my point is not that the courts don't use that standard, but that that standard is clearly not laid out in the Constitution. Just because the courts have decided that is how they will determine if a law is ok or not, doesn't mean that the Constitution says that's how they should make their determination. To think that the 14th, which was ratified in 1868, was originally meant to protect the rights of all races to be treated equally is ludicrous.

To get back to the original point I was trying to make, there is a difference between "interpreting" what the words in the Constitution mean, and departing completely from the document because judges just think the Constitution ought to mean something. In the latter case, it is incumbent on the courts to allow the legislature to pass laws to expand the rights of the citizens. If the people want a right that isn't laid out in the Constitution, they have to get it through legislation, not judges deciding they want to create that right out of thin air. If the people want a right to be permanent, they have to pass an amendment, not convince a judge to issue a ruling that just says that right is in their somewhere. If the people can't get support for an amendment, then they get to pass a law, so long as it doesn't conflict with the Constitution, and in that case, they have to understand that the law could be reversed later on if public opinion changes. Nothing in the Constitution gurantees anyone the right to marry whoever they want. If a State passes a law saying that "marriage" only applies to heterosexual couples, nothing in the Constitution contradicts that. If a State wanted to pass a law saying "marriage" could extend to gay couples too, nothing in the Constitution would contradict that either. However, there is nothing in there that comes even close to something a judge could reasonably interpret to be a gurantee of a gay persons right to marry.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

There is a difference between "no reasons whatever for the ban to continue" and "there is no reason whatever to oppose gay marriage".

It reads to me like the MA SC is saying the State has provided no valid reasons to continue the ban, though there may actually be valid reasons. It's just that the State hasn't provided them yet. And I could be wrong, but back when this was all unfolding I don't think the MA SC said the MA Congress had to pass a law making gay marriage legal, I thought they said the MA Congress had to pass a law on the issue one way or the other. If I'm right, then the MA SC did exactly what you have maintained since I've been on the board: they said the State has to decide the law, which the SC and courts will then enforce.

On this subject I know nothing, but does MA make any of its decisions by looking at the other 49 states? Or do they make their decisions totally on MA law? I'd assume they turn a blind eye to other states, but like I said, I don't know how this works.



Finally, I must stress, again, I don't think MA is talking about gay marriage. There's nothing about this (to my knowledge) that is forcing churches in MA to perform ceremonies. This is about civil unions and purely for legal purposes. The marriage part has always been defined as a religious aspect to the civil union (state license). Further, I actually think if one is a proponent of keeping the sanctity of religious marriages intact then one would want to make it so non-religious people wouldn't have to get "married". We need to remove the religious aspect from the legal state aspect. If you just want to be in a civil union, apply for the license and go to a court house. If you just want to get married go to a church. If you want both, get a license, and go to a church.

i don't think there is any gov'tal authority that could permissibly regulate the sex of two consenting adults, and i don't think that needs be stated in any document. the idea is that gov't, whether state or federal, derives its authority from the power granted to it by the people. i've seen nothing that indicates that the people have ceded authority to the gov't to regulate sex between consenting adults.

back to free speech, what about libel, slander, or porn?

i have in no way conceded that the logic in lawerence will lead to the inexorable move to gay marriage or polygamy. simply because someone employs the same logic does not mean it will persuade the court. what i said is that i would personally have no problem if someone legalized polygamy and used the same rationale to do so.

i will submit that removing bans on gay sex would permit challenges to gay marriage bans, because you are right, without clearing that hurdle, attacking gay marriage would be difficult. again, however, that does not mean by permitting gay sex, you must permit gay marriage. what it should have alerted people to do was to examine their marriage policies and develop a better justification, one that would withstand constitutional scrutiny.

and the "end" of equal protection arguments comes in the court's tests to apply equal protection. yes, anyone can make an equal protection argument over any issue. just because they make the argument doesn't mean it's valid. equal protection is written in broad terms. if you want to be a slave to intent then it would only apply to blacks and that's it. women--screwed. mexicans--sorry. chinese--not so much. and that is an utterly ridiculous proposition.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

i don't think there is any gov'tal authority that could permissibly regulate the sex of two consenting adults, and i don't think that needs be stated in any document.

And there you have it. Art's point is proved- you don't think any government has any business regulating something, and whether or not it's actually stated in any document, you're going to say it's a Constitutional issue. What the hell good is the Constitution if you can do that?

i've seen nothing that indicates that the people have ceded authority to the gov't to regulate sex between consenting adults.

So- incest laws gotta go, huh? Curious as to what you think about bestiality laws? (I know it's not sex between two consenting adults, but then again, the only party in that kind of case with any Constitutional rights is a consenting adult.)

And what do you mean you've seen nothing that indicates people have ceded authority to regulate sex? You can't be serious with that.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

No, the MA SC ordered the MA state legislature, a coequal branch of government, to pass a law authorizing gay marriage. The MA legislature actually went back and asked if passing a law authorizing civil unions was enough. The MA SC said, no, we said gay marriage and you will pass that law on the schedule we gave you. Don't make us tell you again.

I am generally opposed to gay marriage, but my reasons are not convincing or cogent enough to persuade anyone, so I won't try. I am absolutely opposed to gay marriage mandated by judges though. If the arguments in favor of gay marriage are compelling, democracy will work through the process.

This whole thing looks like the abortion battle all over. Had the SC not taken the issue out of the democratic process by creating a constitutional right to abortion out of thin air, reasonable abortion rights would have been approved democratically in a compromise that most people would accept even if they weren't happy with it. That is exactly what happened in England for example. Abortion is a non issue there. Here, the illegitimately gained right tears at the governmental fabric.

"i've seen nothing that indicates that the people have ceded authority to the gov't to regulate sex between consenting adults"

You're kidding right? What about the countless laws that were passed over the years, starting almost from the very beginning of the U.S. that regulated sex? You can't have anal sex. You can't have oral sex. In some areas it's against the law to cheat on your spouse. You can't have sex with your adult children. Etc, Etc.

It's a relatively new idea that govt has no business at all in the bedroom.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

so simply because those sex laws are on the books, that means the people ceded that authority?

and my argument is that a right to privacy doesn't need to be written in a constitution. it's innate as part of your membership into the club of consenting adults. your argument seems to be that there needs to be a written "right to privacy", otherwise it doesn't exist and it(my or anyone else's private lives) is open to gov't regulation. i'd argue it should be exactly the opposite. without a grant of authority to regulate my private life(for me this is one of those "inalienable things), they don't have the power....

---

f/k/a mclamb6