Bio not provided
<i>Now we come to the big question: Does a state’s decision to grant benefits to just one sort of union violate the equal protection doctrine? A grant of special privileges to one group while excluding others does violate that doctrine unless the state can point to legitimate public reasons for its decision. How strong the reasons have to be depends on the kind of case. For better or worse, the Supreme Court is very tolerant of government discrimination among economic classes. In social-issue cases, on the other hand, the Court sets more exacting standards.
It is clear that for constitutional purposes civil marriage laws that include one man/one woman unions do meet those exacting standards. This is because of the overwhelming evidence of social benefit deriving from such unions. This evidence arises both from formal empirical studies and from practical experience gathered, quite literally, over millennia.
What about extending the “privileges and immunities” of civil marriage to other groupings? That’s a much tougher case to make because, with the arguable exception of polygamous marriage, the supporting evidence is so much weaker.Particularly in the case of same-sex marriage, the evidence of social benefit is spotty and highly politicized. Under Supreme Court Equal Protection jurisprudence, it is not strong enough to require states to recognize such unions.</i>
I must disagree with this entire line of reasoning. While SCOTUS says the states can discriminate if they find "social" or other benefit to the people of the state, I look at the state constitutions and see no authority to discriminate. Having a <i>reason</i> to discriminate is not sufficient - the states must also have the constitutional (via their own state constitutions) <i>authority</i> to do so. Like the federal Congress, states do not have plenary power to do beneficial things, only the power to do those things they are authorized to do. Lacking the authority to discriminate and deny some couples benefits and recognition extended to others, I must conclude that such discrimination is beyond the authority of the states to effect.
10 months ago on The Constitutional Issues In Same-Sex Marriage
OK, I watched the recommended "period." The only mention of background checks was in relation to those conducted by FFLs at gun shows to put the lie to the "gun show loophole" myth. He made no comments about his personal thoughts about background checks as they are currently required. No indication otherwise whether or not he supports them or not. Any "sarcasm" in the period was not in reference to the constitutionality or propriety of background checks. Yes, he directs sarcasm at those who support "reasonable gun laws," but that's because the laws those people are supporting now are unreasonable and far beyond what is already established; he is mocking their claim to "reasonableness."
11 months, 1 week ago on SOTG 003 – Colorado Criminalizes Gun Owners
You are correct, with a qualification. At about 2:45, he states that people who are "reasonable" (I presume he means people who consider themselves reasonable, and not necessarily judged reasonable by himself) support background checks. The "reasonable person" asks (about FFL transaction checks), "What's wrong with that?" Paul then grants a pass to the hypotheticaly "reasonable person's" opinion by saying "OK" and does not object to premise that background checks run by FFLs are "reasonable." From this, I infer that he supports background checks when making purchases from an FFL. I may be wrong, but that's what I got from his theoretical discussion with the hypothetical "reasonable person."Can you point me to a specific podcast or video in which he makes a objection to the current background check system?
11 months, 2 weeks ago on SOTG 003 – Colorado Criminalizes Gun Owners
Sorry, buddy, gotta break ranks with you here. I do not support background checks and never have.When they were instituted, they were technically imposed upon licensed dealers, appropriate subjects of regulations. But the government simply cannot be trusted, and the trust extended to them vis-a-vis background checks is now redounding to our dismay. “Reasonable” firearms regulations now include impositions on the private citizen, someone whose rights are supposed to be beyond government authority.
Our rights are being legislated out of existence an iota at a time. Every restriction you agree with sets the stage for further restrictions, for which there will always be supporters, and their support will lead to yet more restrictions. The “slippery slope” is not only real, we’ve been sliding on it for some time.
Funny, you mention the parable of the frog, but you haven’t applied the lesson to your own thinking. We are the frog, and as long as we have government, we’re in the pot. We can’t let them turn on the fire at all, because someone is always ready to turn up the heat.