Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Prop. 8: Gay-marriage ban unconstitutional, court rules [View all]CAPHAVOC
(1,138 posts)40. Equal Protection Clause
I think that is the basis for this ruling. I agree. But if this goes to the SCOTUS and is upheld I wonder if it will set up a conflict with the Commerce Clause. The precedents in each clause seem to be opposing each other. Many laws do not follow the Equal Protection Clause.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
114 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
My first post when this all began was that it would be called unconstitutional.
Gregorian
Feb 2012
#13
Here's hoping the opponents spend hundreds of millions more in a losing SC appeal.
Ikonoklast
Feb 2012
#32
Well there goes the neighborhood. So much for that much desired monoculture of uptight ethics.
Gregorian
Feb 2012
#37
Great point. And we dont want it to go higher with this SCOTUS. Once they rule it is very hard to
rhett o rick
Feb 2012
#75
The consequences of losing is too great for the risk in my opinion when the possibility
rhett o rick
Feb 2012
#100
I understand completely. I meant that with the risk, I hope it doesnt go at this time. nm
rhett o rick
Feb 2012
#105
Kennedy was the deciding vote in Romer v. Evans, and wrote the opinion, I believe.
morningfog
Feb 2012
#110