First up is the conclusion of the USSC decision on US v Windsor:
”The power the Constitution grants it also restrains.Now let’s replace the references to homosexuals with “Preborn humans at any stage of development”, and DOMA with “ABORTION/Roe v Wade”:
And though Congress has great authority to design laws to
fit its own conception of sound national policy, it cannot
deny the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of
the Fifth Amendment.
What has been explained to this point should more than
suffice to establish that the principal purpose and the
necessary effect of this law are to demean those persons
who are in a lawful same-sex marriage. This requires
the Court to hold, as it now does, that DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.
The liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Due
Process Clause contains within it the prohibition against
denying to any person the equal protection of the laws.
See Bolling, 347 U. S., at 499–500; Adarand Constructors,
Inc. v. Peña, 515 U. S. 200, 217–218 (1995). While the
Fifth Amendment itself withdraws from Government the
power to degrade or demean in the way this law does,
the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment makes that Fifth Amendment right all the more specific and all the better understood and preserved.
The class to which DOMA directs its restrictions and
restraints are those persons who are joined in same-sex
marriages made lawful by the State. DOMA singles out a
class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition
and protection to enhance their own liberty. It imposes a
disability on the class by refusing to acknowledge a status
the State finds to be dignified and proper. DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with
whom same-sex couples interact, including their own
children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others. The federal statute is invalid, for no
legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to
disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its mar-
riage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity.
By seeking to displace this protection and treating those
persons as living in marriages less respected than others,
the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful
marriages.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit is affirmed.”
”The power the Constitution grants it also restrains.
And though Congress has great authority to design laws to
fit its own conception of sound national policy, it cannot
deny the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of
the Fifth Amendment.
What has been explained to this point should more than
suffice to establish that the principal purpose and the
necessary effect of this law are to demean those persons
who are [lawful preborn humans at any stage of development ]. This requires
the Court to hold, as it now does, that ABORTION/Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.
The liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Due
Process Clause contains within it the prohibition against
denying to any person the equal protection of the laws.
See Bolling, 347 U. S., at 499–500; Adarand Constructors,
Inc. v. Peña, 515 U. S. 200, 217–218 (1995). While the
Fifth Amendment itself withdraws from Government the
power to degrade or demean in the way this law does,
the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment makes that Fifth Amendment right all the more specific and all the better understood and preserved.
The class to which ABORTION/ROE V. WADE directs its [class] restrictions and
restraints are those persons who are[lawful preborn humans at any stage of development ]
made lawful by the State. ABORTION/ROE V. WADE singles out a
class of persons deemed by a State entitled [not to be killed on demand, removing their own liberty]. It imposes a
disability on the class by refusing to acknowledge a status
the State finds to be dignified and proper. ABORTION/ROE V. WADE instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with
whom [lawful preborn humans at any stage of development]interact, including their own future
children, that their [existence as normal humans] is less worthy than the existence of others. The federal statute is invalid, for no
legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to
disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its ABORTION/ROE V. WADE laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity.
By seeking to displace this protection and treating those
persons as living [lawful preborn humans at any stage of development ] as less respected than others,
the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
This opinion and its holding are confined to those
[lawful preborn humans at any stage of development ].
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit is affirmed.”
The following is from NRO, Bench Memos:
”In Kennedy’s translation, the Defense of Marriage Act showed its animus in its very title: The defense of marriage was simply another way of disparaging and “denigrating” gays and lesbians, and denying dignity to their “relationships.” As Justice Scalia noted so tellingly in his dissent, Kennedy could characterize then as bigots the 85 senators who voted for the Act, along with the president (Clinton) who signed it. Every plausible account of marriage as a relation of a man and woman can then be swept away, as so much cover for malice and blind hatred.
As Scalia suggested, that opinion can now become the predicate for challenges to the laws on marriage in all of the States. A couple of the same sex need merely go into a federal court and invoke Justice Kennedy’s opinion in the DOMA case (U.S. v. Windsor): The Supreme Court has declared now that a law that refuses to recognize same-sex marriage is animated by a passion to demean and denigrate. Any such law cannot find a rational ground of justification. As Kennedy had famously said in Romer v. Evans, those kinds of laws can be explained only in terms of an irrational “animus.””
No comments:
Post a Comment