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
LGBT
In reply to the discussion: Elena Kagan says: [View all]elleng
(131,820 posts)30. Loving was decided in 1967, so probably no 'generations of lawyers there,
but your point is essentially correct, the 'right' to marry cannot be restricted by 'invidious discrimination.' The issue may arise sooner rather than later: Is gender-based distinction/discrimination entitled to the same sort of scrutiny, that is, 'strict scrutiny,' as is race-based discrimination.
People have to understand 14th Amendment jurisprudence to get the subtleties, and its not simple.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
56 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
Your right to privacy cannot be infringed upon. Negative right, not positive.
WingDinger
Jun 2012
#25
That's true, but the elephant in the room here is that reason and logic are not primary
Zorra
Jun 2012
#54
We covered Loving in my Business Law class for my MBA, and that's fairly recent.
Creideiki
Jun 2012
#56
I'm so glad we have you here to remind us that we don't deserve equal rights.
Creideiki
Jun 2012
#44