Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (112185)	5/29/2009 1:44:35 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541676

if the legislature decided that there were too many unmarried older women and enacted a law that allowed men and women to marry only when the woman was 5 years or more older than the man, would that be, according to your thesis, equal? Hmm. My first thought would be no, since its treating men and women differently. But its sort of a borderline case, it could be argued that its creating a single standard about marriages that applied to all people equally. Still I think I'd have to say no. I still think I'd say no, but I can understand the argument for yes. The courts have made it very clear that the legislature cannot interfere in matters that are considered critical to our pursuit of happiness unless there is a compelling state interest Something very distantly like that (there is the idea of a "right to privacy", and such, but no direct judicial declaration that the state can not interfere in the pursuit of happiness, or has to have a compelling interest to interfere in the pursuit of happiness) the but no idea is a general idea used in the courts at times, but it gets applied in very vague and arbitrary ways, excluding all sorts of serious interference. To a certain extent the idea is inherently vague an open to interpretation, but even considering that fact the legal application has been very arbitrary. Strict Scrutiny - Which requires a narrowly tailored solution, using the least restrictive means, to forward a compelling state interest, isn't generally applied to "matters critical to our pursuit of happiness", but rather when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed. Also I don't really consider giving benefits to people or not giving them benefits to be direct interference in their "pursuit of happiness", or in their "privacy" etc. The issue isn't interference with same sex marriage (at least not since laws outlawing homosexual activity where struck down), like it has been at times with interference against polygamous marriages, but rather lack of recognition and benefits. That isn't really denying marriage any more than denying the home mortgage tax deduction to some group is denying them the right to own their house. I can see an argument that it may be unfair or unreasonably, but it isn't active interference by the legislature, only a case of providing support and recognition to some that it doesn't provide to others. There's a lot of hysterical babbeling about protecting the sanctity of marriage but the fact is that no one has a credible answer to that question. I'm not sure I support that issue as a "compelling state interest", but I don't really consider it totally non-credible either. Also a compelling state interest is not needed in this case. There isn't much to argue that this is a real strict scrutiny issue.