Replies

Equal protection demands that laws treat alike all people who are “similarly situated with respect to the legitimate purposes of the law.” “ ‘[S]imilarly situated’ cannot mean simply ‘similar in the possession of the classifying trait.’ All members of any class are similarly situated in this respect, and consequently, any classification whatsoever would be reasonable by this test.” Likewise, “similarly situated” cannot be interpreted to require plaintiffs be identical in every way to people treated more favorably by the law. “No two people or groups of people are the same in every way, and nearly every equal protection claim could be run aground [under] a threshold analysis” that requires the two groups “be a mirror image of one another.” Rather, equal protection demands that the law itself must be equal. It requires that laws treat all those who are similarly situated with respect to the purposes of the law alike. Thus, the purposes of the law must be referenced for a meaningful evaluation.

Utter nonsense. Equal protection has never demanded radical egalitarianism. In fact, equal protection has never demanded that things which are different in fact or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same.

The tyrants on the Iowa Supreme Court tried to flip the script. They ignored the fact that the State makes the same benefit, that being mixed-gender marriage, equally available to all individuals on the exact same basis. It does not matter that the sodomites do not wish to enter an opposite sex relationship. It is the availability of the right on equal terms, not the equal use of the right that is central to a constitutional analysis.

Moreover, with no other group has equal protection been twisted in this manner. Homosexuality IS NOT an inborn trait that can never be altered. It is a behavior. We don't invoke equal protection analysis to protect behavior choices.

Marriage is a natural institution, as It's union of a man and a woman is rooted in the order of nature itself. It is an institution that the state protects because it's members form the bedrock of society. The members of that institution must necessarily be of the opposite sex. No matter how seared one's conscience may be, reality dictates that Men and Women's bodies are different and that those differences compliment each other. Only a Man and a Woman can properly join together as one flesh.

They ignored the fact that the State makes the same benefit, that being mixed-gender marriage, equally available to all individuals on the exact same basis.

You choose a narrow interpretation of the benefit, "mixed-gender marriage." Why impose that limitation over the broader benefit, namely the ability of an individual to marry a loving partner?

It does not matter that the sodomites do not wish to enter an opposite sex relationship.

But they could if they wanted to, so no harm no foul? I seem to recall some old guy writing about inalienable rights yadda yadda the pursuit of happiness, but I forget where I heard that.

Homosexuality IS NOT an inborn trait that can never be altered. It is a behavior.

Citation needed. When did YOU choose to become a (presumably) heterosexual? Moreover, if sexuality is a choice, why aren't there more homosexuals? If it's a choice, then it strikes me that it could go either way. Alternatively, given the intense social pressures against it, why are there ANY homosexuals in fundamentalist religious communities?