Originally Posted by drob8785
Ah, now you dip into the murky waters of suspect classes.
You'll note that that term, or anything like it, isn't found in the Constitution. It's a tool used by the judicial system to protect groups that have historically been institutionally discriminated against. This DOES NOT mean that a group can be discriminated against if they are not considered to be a protected suspect class. Rather, it only means that a lower bar is set -- the rational basis test -- rather than the strict scrutiny given to suspect classes.
Courts found in both Perry v. Schwarzenegger and Lawrence v. Texas that discriminating against homosexuals fails even the rational basis test.
You have a really twisted and backwards notion of the role of laws and the process of law making in the US. Were you asleep in High School Civics?
Legally speaking, the burden is ALWAYS on the ones taking rights away, not on the ones trying to expand freedoms.
And this is a legal question.
A law can violate the Equal Protection Clause even if it doesn't target a "protected class."
nobody is proposing taking already-existing "rights" away. As a whole, there is no "right" to gay marriage in most states or federally.