re: #369 iossarian

Eh. My non-lawyer take on the judge’s ruling is that “it’s OK for people to make discriminatory laws as long as the victims of those laws don’t manage to persuade enough people that they deserve better”.

Which, when you think about it, is pretty much the definition of democracy. The difference between “liberals” and “conservatives” being where your threshold is for detecting and caring about the negative effects of discrimination.

Oh, this is just something that’s bugged me for a long time, not just this ruling. Rational basis allows what you say, essentially - that as long as the state can show they have some interest, very little direct scrutiny applies. To discriminate in law based on race/gender/religion, however, they have to show a much more compelling reason - heightened scrutiny. They can still do it if they show that there is some very necessary/compelling reason for the State to do so, but the bar is higher.

I believe it should be that way for sexual orientation, but thus far the courts have not applied that standard - which this ruling particularly calls out as a reason why he sticks to rational basis, which leads to his THINK OF THE CHILDREN call. Because that is a perfectly legit reason to deny equal protection to all citizens. My childless marriage does not thank him.