Whites didn't want the black blood mixing with their blood.    Homosexuals cannot produce offspring with one another. 

That's one of the differences.

Posted by jrd_x on 5/24/2012 5:55:00 PM (view original):
Apples and oranges.  Everyone is limited in the same way by the gun laws.  There is no equal protection issue.

?

Posted by jrd_x on 5/24/2012 6:17:00 PM (view original):
"You keep quoting the state of Alabama."

What? How am I quoting Alabama?  Loving went to the SC because of Virginia's laws.

"The laws were based on maintaining white supremacy"

 How does that change anything?  The laws were violating the 14th amendment.

1 I meant Virginia. You only quoted their version, not the actual decision.

2 That is what the Justices said in their decision.

You seem to be making that jump that there is no standard for what makes something 14th amendment related.

No I quoted the actual decision.  I don't know what you are talking about with "their version." Here is the link: 
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html

Yes the laws were racist, but the decision cites the 14th amendment 15 times and equal protection eight times.  This decision was absolutely 14th amendment related.

The last line of part 2 of the decision says: "Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

They are saying that the state cannot pass an interracial marriage ban without a compelling legal reason.  The state didn't have one and the law was unconstitutional.

Posted by jrd_x on 5/25/2012 12:00:00 AM (view original):
No I quoted the actual decision.  I don't know what you are talking about with "their version." Here is the link: 
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html

Yes the laws were racist, but the decision cites the 14th amendment 15 times and equal protection eight times.  This decision was absolutely 14th amendment related.

The last line of part 2 of the decision says: "Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

They are saying that the state cannot pass an interracial marriage ban without a compelling legal reason.  The state didn't have one and the law was unconstitutional.

And that clearly puts racial marriage issues as 14th amendment based.

That doesnt mean that any possible issue has to be 14th amendment related.

The government has always defended famalies, and gays will not create children. There is also no history of oppression.

I've never argued that any possible issue has to be 14th amendment related.

But this one is.

Unless the U.S. Supreme Court decides that it's not.

If you look at case law related to the equal protection clause, it's almost certain that the supreme court will elevate this issue to at least rational basis.  Even at that lowered level of scrutiny, the state still needs to argue a legitimate government interest in banning same sex marriage.

DOMA going the way of prop 8?
Check it out:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/05/25/MN4N1ONCRO.DTL&type=newsbayarea

Posted by jrd_x on 5/25/2012 12:51:00 PM (view original):
DOMA going the way of prop 8?
Check it out:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/05/25/MN4N1ONCRO.DTL&type=newsbayarea

And by that you mean stopped by a liberal leaning judge and overturned on Appeal by a higher court?

You may be right on that one.

The radical left on this one is really cashing in their favors to get all this court time.

She is definitely liberal leaning, but neither her decision nor Walker's was overturned on appeal.  Walker's ruling was affirmed by the appeals court.

In the end both will be overturned by the Highest court.

The moderate Kennedy will see that this isnt a Constituional issue.

This isnt a general rule against gay rights, this is a specific technical issue dealing with religion and traditional values.

In the end both will be overturned by the Highest court. 

What makes you think that?  The Perry decision was essentially written for Kennedy and his Romer decision.  It's not automatic, but if he's the deciding vote, there is a track record to look back on and surmise that he will not overturn the circuit court ruling.

The moderate Kennedy will see that this isnt a Constituional issue. 

Will he?  Again, read Romer and Lawrence.  He thought those were Constitutional issues.

This isnt a general rule against gay rights, this is a specific technical issue dealing with religion and traditional values.

Whose religion?  Mine? Yours? Neither?  We don't live in a theocracy.  What's right in my religion may not be ok in yours, so we make laws based on the Constitution, not religion.

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.