'Equal Protection’ As Explained by the Supreme Court it Equals Marriage Like Straights

The Court that decided Plessy

Civil Right Cases 1883

United States of America
This article is part of the series: United States Constitution
Original text of the Constitution
Preamble Articles of the Constitution I   II   III   IV   V   VI   VII
Amendments to the Constitution
Bill of Rights I   II   III   IV   V   VI   VII   VIII   IX   X Subsequent Amendments XI   XII   XIII   XIV   XV   XVI   XVII XVIII   XIX XX   XXI   XXII   XXIII XXIV   XXV   XXVI XXVII Unratified Amendments I(1)   XIII(1)   XIII(2)   XX(1) XXVII(1) XXVII(2)
Full text of the Constitution
Original Constitution Bill of Rights Subsequent Amendments Unsuccessful Amendments
Other countries ·  Law Portal view   talk   edit

A year ago I discussed on Facebook and blogged about what gay lawyers and others reading the constitution were saying. The words if recognized by the Supreme Court are “EQUAL PROTECTION" UNDER THE LAW (14th Amendment). They did and went beyond with the statement from Kennedy. It will equal to same sex marriage. This does not mean we don’t keep fighting, we need the pressure of the public to be a water tight case. Below with the help of a source I explain in details. It is simple now, Not complicated and all of us show know why. 

Wikepedia

The DOMA decision had the court add a second rationale from the first which is each state deciding on their own if they want gay marriage or not. The second rationale of the decision is equal protection. In states with same-sex marriage, Washington must give the same federal benefits to gay couples as to straight couples because to do otherwise is to discriminate against the gay couples. After all, they are equally married in their states. For Washington to discriminate against them is to deny them equal protection of the laws. Such discrimination is nothing more than irrational animus — and therefore constitutionally inadmissible.

But notice what that second rationale does. If the argument is just federalism, the court is saying: Each state decides — and we, the court, are out of here. But if the argument is equal protection, one question is left hanging. Why should equal protection apply only in states that recognize gay marriage? Why doesn’t it apply equally — indeed, even perhaps more forcefully — to gays who want to marry in states that refuse to marry them?

If discriminating (regarding federal benefits) between a gay couple and a straight couple is prohibited in New York where gay marriage is legal, by what logic is discrimination permitted in Texas, where a gay couple is prevented from marrying in the first place?

Which is exactly where the majority’s second rationale leads — nationalizing gay marriage, the way Roe nationalized abortion. This is certainly why David Boies, the lead attorney in the companion Proposition 8 case, was so jubilant when he came out onto the courthouse steps after the ruling. He understood immediately that once the court finds it unconstitutional to discriminate between gay and straight couples, nationalizing gay marriage is just one step away.

So why didn’t Justice Anthony Kennedy, the traditional swing vote who wrote the majority opinion on DOMA with the court’s four liberals, take that step? Why did he avoid doing the full Roe — nationalizing the procedure in question and declaring the subject now closed? I suspect he thought it would be a bridge too far. At least for today.

But he knows that the double rationale underlying his DOMA opinion has planted the seed for going Roe next time. It was prudence, not logic, that stayed his hand. “The only thing that will ‘confine’ the Court’s holding,” wrote dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia with a bit less delicacy, “is its sense of what it can get away with.” Next case — Kennedy & Co. go all the way.

Excerpts from  Charles Krauthammer’

 and 

Adam Gonzalez

 A Very happy unmarried gay believing that even though we can’t kill homophobia that’s too bad. We could not cure bigotry towards blacks but we have a black president. As long as we get what is rightfully ours, Straights insisting on their old ideas, don’t have to love us.