1 - 6
In response to:

Gay Marriage Advocates Lose By Winning

pchandler Wrote: Feb 19, 2013 5:13 PM
adopted quasi-strict scrutiny in Lawrence. We will see, shortly after oral arguments in March, just where the majority on the US Supreme Court actually stands. Any opinion affirming the striking down of Section 3 of DOMA will necessarily have to be analytically rich and convincing in order to survive the potential backlash (and there will indeed be a backlash, the likes of which may rock the nation). PHILIP CHANDLER
In response to:

Gay Marriage Advocates Lose By Winning

pchandler Wrote: Feb 19, 2013 5:11 PM
In Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (striking down all state "sodomy" statutes as applied to consensual behavior between adults acting in private settings), the Court again baffled many legal observers by not adopting the traditional three-tiered approach for deciding due process challenges (strict scrutiny (in cases where fundamental rights are at stake, or whether the law concerned classifies along suspect lines), quasi-strict scrutiny (in cases where the law concerned classifies along quasi-suspect lines), or rational basis review (in all other cases). Instead, the Court adopted what the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit contended was a balancing test. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the Court had (cont)
In response to:

Gay Marriage Advocates Lose By Winning

pchandler Wrote: Feb 19, 2013 5:06 PM
on equal protection grounds. In Romer (supra), the Court went out of its way not to state which standard of review it was invoking, distancing itself from the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling by stating that it affirmed that ruling, but based on a different rationale ("We granted certiorari, 513 U. S. 1146 (1995), and now affirm the judgment, but on a rationale different from that adopted by the State Supreme Court..."). At no point did the Romer majority assert that the state court decision was incorrectly reasoned; it merely opined that Amendment 2 was not rationally related to a legitimate state interest (i.e., it adopted rational basis review, without affirmatively stating that this standard should be applied in all subsequent cases).
In response to:

Gay Marriage Advocates Lose By Winning

pchandler Wrote: Feb 19, 2013 5:00 PM
Two US Courts of Appeals (the First and Second Circuit) have concluded that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional. Of the two opinions, the one handed down by the Second Circuit is, in my humble opinion, the richest and most analytically coherent. This court argues that mere rational basis review cannot be applied to Section 3 of DOMA, and goes into considerable detail pertaining to case law in which the US Supreme Court has purported to employ rational basis review but has, in fact, employed a higher standard of review ("modulating" the rational basis standard). I believe that the US Supreme Court will build on Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) and Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), and will overturn Section 3 of DOMA (cont.)
In response to:

Gay Marriage Advocates Lose By Winning

pchandler Wrote: Feb 19, 2013 4:55 PM
How many state governors are openly gay? How many members of the US House of Representatives are openly gay? (I think the answer is probably two or three, out of a total of 435). Just how many judges or justices sitting on the US Courts of Appeals are openly gay? For that matter, how many federal district court judges are openly gay? (I think the answer is a small handfull, out of more than 900 such judges.) The Nevada district court judge overlooks these issues entirely. He equates the gradual accumulation, in small increments, of political power with the possession of sufficient political power as to render gay persons not worthy of any form of heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment (continued)
In response to:

Gay Marriage Advocates Lose By Winning

pchandler Wrote: Feb 19, 2013 4:51 PM
The Nevada Federal District Court ruling is so wrong-headed as to make it almost amusing (it would be amusing were the issues involved not so serious). So gay men and lesbians have political clout and can defend themselves from majoritarian abuses of power? Tell that to the gay and lesbian citizens of more than 20 states who can be fired merely for having a photograph of their partner on their desks. Tell that to the citizens of the more than 30 states in which constitutional amendments have been inscribed into the respective state constitutions, prohibiting the recognition of gay marriage. Just how many US Senators are openly gay? (I think tha answer is one -- Tammy Baldwin -- out of the 100 US Senators in that chamber.) (continued)
1 - 6