Quote:
Originally Posted by AGDee
I understand what you're saying, Kevin, but I can see the argument too of someone saying "if the majority say that marriage = man + woman of the same race", then that would also be Constitutional, yet, it's not Constitutional and states can't make that designation.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin
Sexual orientation is not a suspect class, race is.
There's a pretty big difference there. Also, Loving vs. Virginia.
|
Right, and it goes back to Kevin's original query -- can the constitution be unconstitutional. The statutes forbidding interracial marriage were just that -- statutes. Statutes must comply with both the federal Constitution and the relevant state constitution. The United States Supreme Court held that such statutes violate the federal Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. So, even if one were to assume that the majority of voters in a state wanted to amend their state constitution to prohibit interracial marriage, that amendment would be invalid under the federal Constitution.
But so far, the federal courts have not extended the federal Constitution's Equal Protection clause to include sexual orientation. In other words, there is nothing about Prop 8 that on its face violates the federal Constitution.
Threaded Mode
