A Prop 8 challenge for swankers

[Ghoulish Delight]

A bit of ignorance re: law, but I believe I'm right in thinking that federal constitutional law trumps state, yes? So if "separate but equal" has by precedent been deemed unconstitutional at the federal level, wouldn't that hold at the state level, even ignoring the "can't take away rights with a simple majority" precedent?

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

A bit of ignorance re: law, but I believe I'm right in thinking that federal constitutional law trumps state, yes? So if "separate but equal" has by precedent been deemed unconstitutional at the federal level, wouldn't that hold at the state level, even ignoring the "can't take away rights with a simple majority" precedent?

It's been a while, but separate but equal was a racial concept. In equal protection law, you're always going to get your strictest scrutiny when race is at issue. For there to be any equal protection violation, there usually has to be a suspect classification. Gays have not been held to be a suspect class. However, in Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court held that there was no rational basis for criminalizing gay sex, tradition and ancient moral codes notwithstanding. While there is arguably a difference between what is criminalized and what is given civil approval, I think Lawrence is probably the best argument out there.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

Gays have not been held to be a suspect class.

Are you kidding me? Have you met iSm?!? He's as suspect as they get!











(Joking here kids - don't take this post seriously!)