Yep, I can't seem to find any link between the United States and religion.

Posted by tecwrg on 5/29/2012 2:25:00 PM (view original):
Yep, I can't seem to find any link between the United States and religion.

The Constitutionality of a law isn't determined by religion.

What is it determined by?

Posted by jrd_x on 5/29/2012 2:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/29/2012 2:25:00 PM (view original):
Yep, I can't seem to find any link between the United States and religion.

The Constitutionality of a law isn't determined by religion.

100% true.

The issue is that just because a law may have some basis in religion does not make it unconstitutional.

Laws are reviwed independent of their religious origins.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/29/2012 2:22:00 PM (view original):
1 In Remer the policy was wide reaching. It labeled anything that may list gays. It ws too broad. This law is very specific and impacts a very narrow area.

2 This is narrow enough to get past Constitutional issues.

3 The religion of people who want America to hold certain traditional values. They want a law that follows the constitution and also meets their religious rights.

1. What? It labeled anything that may list gays?
2. Is it?  Even at only a rational basis level, the state has a problem showing a legitimate governmental interest.  If the court classifies homosexuality as a suspect class (suggesting they are likely the subject of discrimination), scrutiny is increased and overturning the appeals court is even less likely.
3. Which people?  Me or you?  Whose religion gets priority?

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/29/2012 2:28:00 PM (view original):
What is it determined by?

The constitution.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/29/2012 2:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/29/2012 2:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/29/2012 2:25:00 PM (view original):
Yep, I can't seem to find any link between the United States and religion.

The Constitutionality of a law isn't determined by religion.

100% true.

The issue is that just because a law may have some basis in religion does not make it unconstitutional.

Laws are reviwed independent of their religious origins.

I'm not arguing that the law is unconstitutional because it has basis in religion, my point is that the religious basis can't be the only argument for the law.

Posted by jrd_x on 5/29/2012 2:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/29/2012 2:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/29/2012 2:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/29/2012 2:25:00 PM (view original):
Yep, I can't seem to find any link between the United States and religion.

The Constitutionality of a law isn't determined by religion.

100% true.

The issue is that just because a law may have some basis in religion does not make it unconstitutional.

Laws are reviwed independent of their religious origins.

I'm not arguing that the law is unconstitutional because it has basis in religion, my point is that the religious basis can't be the only argument for the law.

How about historical tradition, as pointed out by the USSC in "District of Columbia vs Heller" in 2008?

Wasn't that the DC handgun case?  Didn't the court find that the law directly violated the constitution?  How is that relevant to same sex marriage?

Stop pretending that you don't know the answer, since I spelled it out for you last week.

But for those just tuning in to this discussion, in the aforementioned case, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that many "rights" have limitations, and that these limitations can be supported by historical tradition.

That ruling could be applied to the issue of same sex marriage, in that the "right" of marriage could be limited by the historical and traditional definition of marriage as a bond between one man and one woman.  Which is is legal definition in many states, and at the federal level.

The judges certainly were not arguing that a law could avoid scrutiny as long as it is based in tradition.

Posted by jrd_x on 5/29/2012 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/29/2012 2:28:00 PM (view original):
What is it determined by?

The constitution.

Who determines the intention of the Constitution?

No, but it certainly implies that tradition can factor into supporting limitations on "rights".

You can deny that all you want, but it doesn't change what they said only 4 years ago.

Posted by tecwrg on 5/29/2012 3:31:00 PM (view original):
No, but it certainly implies that tradition can factor into supporting limitations on "rights".

You can deny that all you want, but it doesn't change what they said only 4 years ago.

I'm not denying it.  My point is that the law is still subject to scrutiny.  Prop 8 doesn't pass scrutiny because, though based in tradition, there isn't a government interest in banning same sex marriage.

EDIT: the Dc gun law isn't subject to scrutiny because the law applies to everyone, not just one class or another.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/29/2012 3:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/29/2012 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/29/2012 2:28:00 PM (view original):
What is it determined by?

The constitution.

Who determines the intention of the Constitution?

Judges determine if a law is constitutional.