I refer you to this post:
It denied them all legal means to seek any protections under the law. The 14th Ammendment prohibits singling out a specific class of people, without some independent and legitimate legislative end, for such forfeiture of legal protections.
Once again you prove you are all soft in the head. It was a ban on "special rights" laws. Such a thing might be worth playing violins over if it was about, say, black people and a few decades ago. Why don't you take a look at the demographics of the homo population? Their affluence puts the mere plebes to shame.
Like the majority in Romer v. Evans, you've allowed your emotions to override your good sense. Some of us are concerned that Roberts may ride his emotions to a similarly foolish socially liberal, family destroying destination. If so, we don't want to follow him to the absurd result he is seeking.
They had every single "protection under the law" that any other citizen of that state had. What they could not do is claim that their homohood earned them any extra protection.
Sorry, but you and (apparently) ThePythonicCow are way off. The first thing you need to understand is that the US Constitution ONLY tells GOVERNMENT what it CAN do, and reiterates the point by going on to specify some things that government CANNOT do. (That's why the more or less redundant "Bill of Rights" was added.)
So, the 14th Amendment says, in part:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
See? It's all about what states cannot do. There's NOTHING about who a private citizen may choose to hire or discriminate against (although I will readily admit that scumbag liberal judicial activists may "discover" something in the 14th Amendment somewhere that they can twist and spin into a "law" which tells a private citizen entrepreneur that he cannot discriminate against gays in his hiring practices even if gays creep him [and maybe his clientelle] out).
Best Regards,
LH
The law discriminates against thieves and murders as well, and of course it should.
The plain text of the 14th ammendment on this matter is terse in the extreme - stating simply:
If local governments in California were passing laws granting special favors to illegal immigrants, or if those in Utah were granting special favors to polygamists, and if the state passed a constitutional ammendment striking down such laws, that is within the states power.
The 14th ammendment does not mean that all conceivable classes of citizens (or non-citizens ;) can have their own special immunity from any state laws singling out their characteristic actions, whether favorably or unfavorably.
We must be careful to avoid and resist extending the scope of the 14th amendment "equal protection" clause. It is a two edged sword. If it can be used to uphold state laws or amendments deemed unfavorable to gays, it can also be used to uphold laws deemed favorable to gays (and abortionists - as indeed has been the case).
That's the real issue here. Not whether a particular state law or amendment is deemed pro or anti gay, but whether the "equal protection" clause of the 14th amendment gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction to override such state issues.
I think Scalia was right - it does not.
And I trust and pray that Bush made a good choice in Roberts. I am optimistic that he did.
For more comments on the unnatural extension of the 14th amendment to extend the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, see the fairly readable article UNNATURAL SELECTION
Scalia was right to resist this extension of the "equal protection" clause.