These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous please click "Report" or email us. Terms and Conditions · Privacy Policy
UK: Card Factory accused of homophobia for selling offensive 'fag' birthday card
142
London: Gay couple threatened with death in violent late night homophobic assault
141
Government considers watered down same-sex marriage bill to minimise Tory rebellion
133
Tory MP Gerald Howarth: 'There are plenty in the aggressive homosexual community who want more than just same-sex marriage'
95
France: Far right activist commits suicide in Notre Dame following legalisation of equal marriage
93
Norman Tebbit: David Cameron has 'f**** things up' with his equal marriage bill
66
US church blames Woolwich suspected terror killing on UK acceptance of gay people
66
Tory MP Sir Gerald Howarth defends 'aggressive homosexual community' equal marriage slur
66
Sir Gerald Howarth: 'I should have used 'militant' rather than 'aggressive' to describe homosexuals
66
David Cameron: Gay teenagers will stand that bit taller following equal marriage vote
63
Robert in S. Kensington 737
Midnighter 431
GulliverUK 364
D.McCabe 358
Mark Y 339
Jock S. Trap 320
That There Other David 312
Iris 307
Sasha 295
Wingby 267
Please do some more serious review before publishing stories about the US. For starters, what does “harsher scrutiny” mean?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny
I wasn’t asking for a Wiki reference. I understand the various levels of scrutiny in American courts. I was asking Pink News to explain the term “harsher scrutiny”, a classification which does not exist.
There are two or three levels of “stricter”, more “stringent” or “harsher” standards depending on how you label them. One would have to read the Department of Justice’s action petition/motion to learn which one was requested. It’s likely that the government made requests in the alternative for all of the more stringent forms, claiming the “rational basis” was too low. the Pink News article is in fact articulated reasonable.
I think it means the most stringent standard of judicial review used by United States courts. It is part of the hierarchy of standards that courts use to weigh the government’s interest against a constitutional right or principle.
Yes, the main reason that the religious right in the US try to insist that sexual orientation is, against all the evidence, a choice, is to try and nullify decisions that we are a class of people that can be protected from discrimination, like race, and we do not deserve a high level of scrutiny when it comes to laws that unfairly affect us.
Intolerant religious groups in other countries have been following this same pattern.
Choice is not the determining factor in establishing heightened scrutiny. It is one of four which are used and not one of the most important.
From what I’ve read of this, the DOMA violates the 14th Ammendment. Equl protection under the law.
My understanding is that it also violates the 5th (due process) and 10th (states rights) ammendments.
Give the LGBT people their freedom to marry the ones they love God created all men equal and they need to be treated as such. Stop the anti-gay hate of LGBT people in America fueled by Christian groups like NOM, http://67-23-1-108.static.cloud-ips.com/emtv/201203270008
It is insulting and demeaning that you determine for me that I was created by a God, unless you have proof of such a statement. I am a equal but not because of any ones God.
Yes indeed. Wasn’t it our parents who created us?
And definitely no space for the Holy Spirit – that was a one-off… Poor old Joseph – did he feel compensated by becoming a saint, one wonders…
the largest issue i see is that we (in the US) are fighting regional laws and federal laws. what one legalizes, another makes unlawful. In most if not all respects, the laws made by the government should overrule local laws. Till its “one law for one people”, there can be no equality.
Unity gives us power and focus, We bicker and squabble over trivial things, instead of simply accepting it.