Quote from: suzifrommd on March 14, 2014, 07:50:25 PM
Had trouble following the legalities in the article. Could I ask that one of the legally knowledgeable Susanites post an explanation in plain language?
This ruling only applies to the 9th circuit.
There's different levels of scrutiny by courts when analyzing statutes, the level gives different responsibilities on the parties to prove if it's constitutional or not under the Equal Protection clause. There's (1) Minimum/Rational basis scrutiny --> government only needs to show that the part of a law which discriminates or favors a certain group is rationally related to a legitimate government interest (this level applies to everything that's not intermediate or strict/heightened scrutiny); (2) Intermediate Scrutiny --> state needs to show that the law serves an important state interest and that the classification is at least substantially related to serving that interest (this applies to gender and illegitimacy), and (3) Strict/Heightened Scrutiny --> government must show that the challenged classification serves a compelling state interest and that the classification is necessary to serve that interest (this applies to race, national origin, alienage, and religion). If the government overcomes this hurdle, they're free to leave the law that has the discriminating or favoring a group characteristic.
Traditionally, homosexuality would fall under Rational Basis scrutiny, which is the easiest for a state/federal government to overcome. This judge though, says homosexuality should fall under the toughest scrutiny, strict/heightened. This would make it much harder for a state/federal government to say "marriage should be between a man and woman only".
Not sure if that's what you were confused by, ask if it was something else.
