@majikal,
Quote:Laws prohibiting gay marriage have equal effect on both men and women
That is logical and, in effect, true.
Quote:The do not discriminate based on gender, they discriminate based on sexual orientation.
Interestingly, he says that the laws do discriminate so they do violate the Constitution. That means he had nothing else to say.
Quote: superior court judge (who likely recieved his law degree through correspondence) can rule whatever he likes.
Did he make that snide remark about correspondence schools? I bet he feels threatened by gay marriage. The man is beneath contempt.
What is even more interesting is that this buffoon presents an upfront insult to someone doing exactly what he is doing: stating what he thinks. No wonder people tell lawyer jokes.
However, while a superior court judge
may rule as he wishes, his opinion
can be over-ruled if it is found not to be in accordance with the law. His tactic then is simply a delay.
I already have three of the dreaded quote boxes in this reply and I need to research strict scrutiny and immediate scrutiny.
But, in re: Loving v Virginia, he is probably right that in 1967, the justices were speaking of marriage as straight marriage but only because gay marriage was not raised as an issue then. Loving v Virginia was two years before the Stonewall Riots.
However, there is increasing pressure from the general public to permit gay marriage. One of my daughter's closest friends, a gay man I have known since he was five, is now engaged to his long time partner. Our family is close to his family. I wish these two young men nothing but the best.