Image via Celebrities in Disgrace Another state falls to the scourge of recognizing that gay Americans are just like not-gay Americans and therefore deserve all the same rights, just like regular Americans, because they are regular Americans. This time, the honor goes to
It's a slightly odd ruling in that it appears to recognize that strict scrutiny is required (since a fundamental right is impinged) but then apply the lowest level of scrutiny (rational basis test, albeit in its "with teeth" flavor wherein the court permits itself to examine the government's claim of rationality). Of course Kennedy loves that kind of shit, hinting LGBTs deserve better legal protections than the current legal framework routinely affords them but consistently ruling in their favor in individual cases within changing that framework for future disputes, at least not unambiguously.
Kennedy knows damned well that there's not a shred of "compelling governmental interest", and that strict scrutiny would doom anti-gay legislation of all kinds. It's almost fun to watch him (and Scalia) dance and sqirm as they try to avoid having the question put to them.
And even if you accept, arguendo, that the claimed purposes are compelling, the legislation allegedly advancing those purported interests are invariably both over and under inclusive.
Of course, while Kennedy dodges the question because while he clearly believes in equal treatment he doesn't want to be seen as the one who swept away the whole raft of anti gay legislation with a single flourish of the pen, Scalia avoids it because he's desperately sticking fingers in the dike of oppression of LGBTs, hopelessly trying to hold back the flood of recognition of their basic humanity.
I suppose "no same-sex marriage" might over-include non-gays, in theory ... but it sure seems "narrowly tailored" to me.
Their <em>purported</em> purpose isn&#039;t &quot;ewwwww gays&quot; though, even they realize that isn&#039;t even a legitimate, let alone compelling, interest, not least because Kennedy smacked them upside the head with that fact in <em>Romer</em>.
Bristol Palin opining about the right way to do marriage is a lot like celibate priests &#039;splaining about sexytime. Totally unencumbered by actual knowledge or experience.
I&#039;m sure Levi now wishes she had taken it on the chin.
If he&#039;s quoting <i>Latte</i> as precedent, he must like Starbucks as well.
See, it&#039;s not global warming.
Fox News&#039; Mike Huckabee says governors should disobey judges who allow same-sex marriage. Way to commit sedition Mikey. Your move, Fox News.
&lt <a href="http:// <a href="http://;" rel="nofollow noopener" title="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/10/12/gop-civil-war-huckabee-demands-republicans-grow/201128&gt;">http://mediamatters.org/blo..."" target="_blank">;" rel="nofollow noopener" title="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/10/12/gop-civil-war-huckabee-demands-republicans-grow/201128&gt;">http://mediamatters.org/blo..."</a> target="_blank"> <a href="http://;" rel="nofollow noopener" title="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/10/12/gop-civil-war-huckabee-demands-republicans-grow/201128&gt;">http://mediamatters.org/blo..." target="_blank">;" rel="nofollow noopener" title="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/10/12/gop-civil-war-huckabee-demands-republicans-grow/201128&gt;">http://mediamatters.org/blo...
<blockquote>Since 2008 we have pulled virtually all our <em>newly gayed up</em> military out of the Middle East</blockquote>
You missed a thing;)
It&#039;s a slightly odd ruling in that it appears to recognize that strict scrutiny is required (since a fundamental right is impinged) but then apply the lowest level of scrutiny (rational basis test, albeit in its &quot;with teeth&quot; flavor wherein the court permits itself to examine the government&#039;s claim of rationality). Of course Kennedy loves that kind of shit, hinting LGBTs deserve better legal protections than the current legal framework routinely affords them but consistently ruling in their favor in individual cases within changing that framework for future disputes, at least not unambiguously.
Axe Body Spray? Or maybe Brut, for his favorite.
She&#039;s got to have a tattoo somewhere...
Huckleberry is not exactly clear about <i>how</i> a governor can &quot;disobey&quot; this order.
Kennedy knows damned well that there&#039;s not a shred of &quot;compelling governmental interest&quot;, and that strict scrutiny would doom anti-gay legislation of all kinds. It&#039;s almost fun to watch him (and Scalia) dance and sqirm as they try to avoid having the question put to them.
And even if you accept, arguendo, that the claimed purposes are compelling, the legislation allegedly advancing those purported interests are invariably both over and under inclusive.
Of course, while Kennedy dodges the question because while he clearly believes in equal treatment he doesn&#039;t want to be seen as the one who swept away the whole raft of anti gay legislation with a single flourish of the pen, Scalia avoids it because he&#039;s desperately sticking fingers in the dike of oppression of LGBTs, hopelessly trying to hold back the flood of recognition of their basic humanity.
I suppose &quot;no same-sex marriage&quot; might over-include non-gays, in theory ... but it sure seems &quot;narrowly tailored&quot; to me.
Their <em>purported</em> purpose isn&#039;t &quot;ewwwww gays&quot; though, even they realize that isn&#039;t even a legitimate, let alone compelling, interest, not least because Kennedy smacked them upside the head with that fact in <em>Romer</em>.
Bristol Palin opining about the right way to do marriage is a lot like celibate priests &#039;splaining about sexytime. Totally unencumbered by actual knowledge or experience.
Those long winter nights aren&#039;t going to seem quite so cold and dark.
That opinion is so gay.