Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: P-Marlowe
I do hope you are never appointed to an appellate postition with any court.

Well, gee, thanks. I never said I think this is a good idea. Indeed, I never even endorsed this ruling. All I have said is that it is inevitable that the Court will eventually rule this way.

"At the very least, the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial classifications, especially suspect in criminal statutes, be subjected to the "most rigid scrutiny," Korematsu v. United States (1944), and, if they are ever to be upheld, they must be shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective, independent of the racial discrimination which it was the object of the Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate. LOVING ET UX. v. VIRGINIA "

You are correct that strict scrutiny is triggered only in race and national origin. However, the 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause applies even to non-suspect classes, including sexual orientation (Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas).

If homosexuality is given protected status under the 14th amendment, then incest, polygamy and bestiality and all other manner of sexual pervesion would necessarily have to be given that same protected status.

Slippery slope arguments are a logical fallacy.

121 posted on 10/19/2006 2:46:16 PM PDT by jude24 ("I will oppose the sword if it's not wielded well, because my enemies are men like me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies ]


To: jude24; xzins; blue-duncan; wagglebee
Slippery slope arguments are a logical fallacy.

LOL! Loving led to Romer which led to Lawrence which will eventually lead to hedonism as a protected class.

The Slippery Slope fallacy is only a fallacy if it has not been documented. In the case of sexual preference as a protected class, we have already travelled the slippery slope. You yourself are insisting that homosexual marriage as a right is "inevitable".

Indeed if we allow it to happen by burying our heads in the sand and laying down while the institution of marriage is attacked and trivialized by hedonists bent on the destruction of our social mores.

Sexual preference is a behavioral problem and not a protected class. It should not be given any more consitutional protection than a food preference or a clothing preference. In light of the fact that homosexual activity is life threatening and the homosexual lifestyle is dangerous and unhealty, it should be discouraged and not protected, especially by equating it with race or national origin. Those are things you can't change. Your choice to engage in deviant sexual behavior is not an immutable characteristic. Nobody has to have anal intercourse.

123 posted on 10/19/2006 3:04:30 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson