Homosexuality In Media

[jkwilliams]

I understand the compelling reason to prohibit incest...but why incestuous marriage, especially if the expectation - as you would surely promote - is that marriage is not a procreative construct of society? I mean an infertile Father should surely be allowed to marry his infertile Daughter by your standards - correct? where is the compelling reason to prohibit their marriage?

The law in Utah allows marriages between first cousins if there's no chance of conception. As for the rest, you'd have to ask the government to show the compelling reason. If there isn't one, then at some point the law will be challenged and likely overturned. Of course, you're trying to shift the discussion away from the fact that you can't find a compelling reason to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. That's OK, because the states haven't either. 

 

again, there is no dispute that marriage is a civil right...the issue is about "qualifications" for marriage.

And you still have not shown that there is something about same-sex couples that disqualifies them from marriage. It shouldn't be that hard.

 

 Laws, especially marriage laws, are not constructed with the provision of exceptions...as to say...the law is not "everyone can get married" and then as the process developed it was amended to say "except 8 year old boys because of this compelling reason"...rather it was obviously created with intention and that intention precluded some moron from thinking he could marry an 8 year old boy.

The laws arose in context, and part of that context is the accepted standard that people below the age of consent cannot marry. If a pedophile challenged this law, do you think the state could come up with a compelling reason to deny children the right to marry? I do, and yet, you can't show any reason to deny same-sex marriages, so I have to conclude that the denial is arbitrary.

 

according to SCOTUS, yes...except, ironically, religion is a protected class. Simply put, an immutable position is like being Black...you cannot simply decide to be Black one day and then be Chinese another...much like you cannot simply choose to be deaf and then a year later decide not to be deaf.

And this is relevant how? I can decide that I will be celibate when I get married, and the state will not deny me the right to marry. I can then decide a few months later not to be celibate, and the law doesn't care. Why should it care if my spouse is another man?

You are mistaken however, the burden of "compelling" reason being provided by the State is not always the case...often the applicant has to provide the compelling reason to qualify - which is precisely what the LGBT is attempting now...and would be much easier of they could prove their immutability (unlikely).

The state must show a compelling reason behind its qualifications for marriage. Again, where are these reasons? You keep evading and changing the subject, which again suggests that you can't think of any good reasons.

 

That being said...my previous post stated quite clearly why homosexual relationships are distinguishable from marriage - ergo - not marriages and thus not entitled to the same protections.

The nutshell:

1. Homosexual relationships represent a psychological retardation in normal healthy human sexual development.

That's just an ugly expression of moral contempt for other people. If I had, say, a foot fetish, some people would consider that an abnormal and unhealthy sexual interest, but they wouldn't deny me the right to marry. You don't get to arbitrarily decide "eww, that's disgusting, you're mentally defective" and then impose that judgment on the rest of your fellow citizens.

2. Homosexual relationships do not convey a virtuous social condition.

A substance-free value judgment. I have a good friend who has been with his partner for 18 years. They're monogamous, committed to each other, own a home, have productive careers, and volunteer in the community. And yet you think that's "not conveying a virtuous social condition" but the married man who beats his wife and neglects his kids is somehow morally superior.

3. Homosexual; relationships do not represent the perpetuation of society and of humankind.

Neither do celibate or infertile couples, yet you do not refuse the right of marriage to them.

4. Homosexual relationships are defective with regard to evolution.

That's just silly.

5. Gender roles (not oppression) are an important distinction in a modern and progressive society.

Gender roles are social constructs, and a modern and progressive society understands that.

6. The welfare of children should not be the subject of a social experiment in order to determine SSM influence on their development.

Gay couples have kids already. How does it help those kids to deny them the rights other kids have to legal protections of families?

7. There is no compelling reason for the State to endorse homosexual relationships.

That's debatable, but that's not the question before the courts, which is, Does the state have a compelling reason to deny marriage to same-sex couples?

Frankly, your list of reasons is about as I expected, but your obvious contempt for gay couples puts the lie to the notion that one hates the sin and not the sinner.

[jkwilliams]

better check again my friend

Strict Scrutiny is what must be applied for any case for the restriction of an fundamental right (i.e. marriage) and this is inevitable for any hope of applying the 14th.

Just ask Justice Souter

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/521/793/case

 

or better yet ask yourself why the 14th amendment just doesn't simply apply right now?

 

or even better...tell me why it does not apply.

 

I mean, no State would even think they could prevent an interracial marriage today....darn those protected classes...too bad my side is one...your side is not.

Strict scrutiny suggests that states may treat unlike cases differently, based on intent. How is the intent of same-sex marriage substantially different from the intent of heterosexual marriages?

[rockpond]

Been there, done that too many unfruitful times. You will see it as you need to see it.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

As will you.  Apparently.

[rockpond]

LDS buck enough trends that I am reluctant to accept surveys that do not specifically reference our fath. For example in one survey we were the only faith that had increased retention of those brought up in our faith since 1970 to the point we even were more successful than Jews.

I think it unlikely that we are gaining people overall because of our attitude, but I wonder just how significant is our loss.

 

We do buck trends.  True.  And I saw that survey you reference... very good news.  Here's the news that isn't so good.  Using our own membership numbers as reported in general conference, our year over year increase in membership was averaging over 5% in the latter half of the 1970's.  It has steadily declined since then to an average of about 2.3% over the last 5 years.  Hopefully the missionary change will begin reversing that trend.

[rockpond]

Meanwhile, yet another federal judge strikes down a gay marriage ban.  Today it's Texas.

[jkwilliams]

We do buck trends.  True.  And I saw that survey you reference... very good news.  Here's the news that isn't so good.  Using our own membership numbers as reported in general conference, our year over year increase in membership was averaging over 5% in the latter half of the 1970's.  It has steadily declined since then to an average of about 2.3% over the last 5 years.  Hopefully the missionary change will begin reversing that trend.

IMO, retention isn't going to get better until the missionary program moves its focus away from numbers and concentrates on conversion. In a lot of places around the world, it's easy for missionaries to have a lot of baptisms but not many conversions. Better to have fewer baptisms but more conversions, IMO.

A good friend of mine was a mission president in a large city in Canada. A visiting GA noted that baptisms were down and wondered why. My friend responded that, before he arrived, the missionaries largely taught refugees from other countries because it was easy to "get them in the font." They went through the discussions rapidly, got them baptized, and never saw them again. My friend told the GA he thought the church was better served if the missionaries took their time, focused on real conversion, and quit worrying about numbers. The GA wasn't happy about it, but he didn't bother him again about the lower numbers.

Things like this give me hope that the missionary program will become a force for good in the world instead of the quick recruiting program it too often has become.

[rockpond]

IMO, retention isn't going to get better until the missionary program moves its focus away from numbers and concentrates on conversion. In a lot of places around the world, it's easy for missionaries to have a lot of baptisms but not many conversions. Better to have fewer baptisms but more conversions, IMO.

A good friend of mine was a mission president in a large city in Canada. A visiting GA noted that baptisms were down and wondered why. My friend responded that, before he arrived, the missionaries largely taught refugees from other countries because it was easy to "get them in the font." They went through the discussions rapidly, got them baptized, and never saw them again. My friend told the GA he thought the church was better served if the missionaries took their time, focused on real conversion, and quit worrying about numbers. The GA wasn't happy about it, but he didn't bother him again about the lower numbers.

Things like this give me hope that the missionary program will become a force for good in the world instead of the quick recruiting program it too often has become.

 

I agree.  My dad recently served as a mission president overseas.  He became quite popular among local church leadership for his focus on retention (and quality converts) even though their baptism rate suffered significantly.

 

We don't get activity rate info in general conference so data is tough to come by.  The closest I can get is to look at the number of members per ward which has shown an increase of over 13% in the past decade.  We have to conclude that there is either an intentional decision to let wards grow bigger, or activity rates have declined, or some combination of those.

 

I believe that we are seeing indications that our missionaries will be allowed more and more hours of community service time each week.  I think that's great! An army of 80,000 missionaries providing service all day and teaching all night could do amazing things in the world.

[jkwilliams]

I agree.  My dad recently served as a mission president overseas.  He became quite popular among local church leadership for his focus on retention (and quality converts) even though their baptism rate suffered significantly.

 

We don't get activity rate info in general conference so data is tough to come by.  The closest I can get is to look at the number of members per ward which has shown an increase of over 13% in the past decade.  We have to conclude that there is either an intentional decision to let wards grow bigger, or activity rates have declined, or some combination of those.

 

I believe that we are seeing indications that our missionaries will be allowed more and more hours of community service time each week.  I think that's great! An army of 80,000 missionaries providing service all day and teaching all night could do amazing things in the world.

I work with a guy who spends all his vacation time every summer working with his church in Africa or Latin America digging wells, building schools, and doing other projects designed to better the lives of the people there. It makes me feel guilty that we did very little to help relieve the suffering of the people of Bolivia, but that wasn't our mission. I'm glad the missionaries are doing more service. I wish we had done so.

[california boy]

I understand the compelling reason to prohibit incest...but why incestuous marriage, especially if the expectation - as you would surely promote - is that marriage is not a procreative construct of society? I mean an infertile Father should surely be allowed to marry his infertile Daughter by your standards - correct? where is the compelling reason to prohibit their marriage?

 

 

again, there is no dispute that marriage is a civil right...the issue is about "qualifications" for marriage.

 

 Laws, especially marriage laws, are not constructed with the provision of exceptions...as to say...the law is not "everyone can get married" and then as the process developed it was amended to say "except 8 year old boys because of this compelling reason"...rather it was obviously created with intention and that intention precluded some moron from thinking he could marry an 8 year old boy.

 

according to SCOTUS, yes...except, ironically, religion is a protected class. Simply put, an immutable position is like being Black...you cannot simply decide to be Black one day and then be Chinese another...much like you cannot simply choose to be deaf and then a year later decide not to be deaf.

You are mistaken however, the burden of "compelling" reason being provided by the State is not always the case...often the applicant has to provide the compelling reason to qualify - which is precisely what the LGBT is attempting now...and would be much easier of they could prove their immutability (unlikely).

 

That being said...my previous post stated quite clearly why homosexual relationships are distinguishable from marriage - ergo - not marriages and thus not entitled to the same protections.

The nutshell:

1. Homosexual relationships represent a psychological retardation in normal healthy human sexual development.

2. Homosexual relationships do not convey a virtuous social condition.

3. Homosexual; relationships do not represent the perpetuation of society and of humankind.

4. Homosexual relationships are defective with regard to evolution.

5. Gender roles (not oppression) are an important distinction in a modern and progressive society.

6. The welfare of children should not be the subject of a social experiment in order to determine SSM influence on their development.

7. There is no compelling reason for the State to endorse homosexual relationships.

Subgenius, just where have you been the last 6 years?  These arguments are the same baseless arguments that were thrown around during the passing of Prop 8.  90% of these arguments are so bad and without foundation that they were never even introduced in a court of law where they would have to be defended based on fact rather than hyperbole emotions.  

 

I strongly suggest you spend some time reviewing multiple rulings by both district and federal courts.  Most of the check list you wrote has absolutely no relationship to the constitutionality of this issue.  It is nonsense and at this point of the debate not really worth going through point by point to expose the fallacy of your points.  If you want a response to your points, you will find them by multiple judges that have ruled on this issue.  Heck we even got you a fresh ruling from Texas today.  Educate yourself about what has been ruled on.  If you have something that you think all of these lawyers have missed, I suggest you contact the lawyers fighting gay marriage.  At this point they would be happy with just one rational reason that can stand up in a court of law.

[subgenius]

You mistake me for someone who has casually glossed over the issue.  I have studied the matter (intellectually and spiritually) for years.  I debated at length with many like yourself.  And I never stated that political power equates to being correct.  Nor does public opinion.  I held firm to my beliefs and to the knowledge I had acquired when public opinion was not on my side and when the courts had not yet taken up the issue.

Given the facts available it seems peculiar that you would conclude, rather ambiguously with the following:

 

" I think that I'm going to move on with the majority of the U.S. population under the realization that gay couples will soon be able to marry everywhere in the U.S. and that no harm and only good will come of it."

 

Your statement here justifies neither an intellectual or spiritual discernment on the matter but merely a "casual" one.

[subgenius]

Meanwhile, yet another federal judge strikes down a gay marriage ban.  Today it's Texas.

 

Dred Scott was a SCOTUS decision...do not confuse yourself with what the lower courts are doing politically....

Prigg v Pennsylvania was another SCOTUS decision...the courts do not always get it "right" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prigg_v._Pennsylvania

 

see also

Pace v Alabama

Korematsu v United States

Lum v Rice

or

Ozawa v United States - which is a gem where an Asian tries to convince the court (an overtly racist court) that he is actually white.

 

I note that you fail to mention that the decision in Texas is being set aside until higher court rules...in other words ban is still in effect unless it causes a serious burden on an applicant(s).

[subgenius]

Strict scrutiny suggests that states may treat unlike cases differently, based on intent. How is the intent of same-sex marriage substantially different from the intent of heterosexual marriages?

yea, not what strict scrutiny means here.

Reference Romer v Evans.

Nevertheless, you invoked the "compelling" argument which requires strict scrutiny. If the LGBT is not subject to strict scrutiny then the State can rely on "interest" or less-compelling reasons to ban SSM.

[jkwilliams]

yea, not what strict scrutiny means here.

Reference Romer v Evans.

Nevertheless, you invoked the "compelling" argument which requires strict scrutiny. If the LGBT is not subject to strict scrutiny then the State can rely on "interest" or less-compelling reasons to ban SSM.

 

No, that's what the case you cited involves.

[rockpond]

Your statement here justifies neither an intellectual or spiritual discernment on the matter but merely a "casual" one.

 

That's because I feel no need to spend the time justifying my intellectual or spiritual conclusions on the matter.  That's what "moving on" means.

 

You are welcome to your legal interpretations.  But since I don't see any courts agreeing with them, I see no need to debate them.

[rockpond]

Dred Scott was a SCOTUS decision...do not confuse yourself with what the lower courts are doing politically....

Prigg v Pennsylvania was another SCOTUS decision...the courts do not always get it "right" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prigg_v._Pennsylvania

 

see also

Pace v Alabama

Korematsu v United States

Lum v Rice

or

Ozawa v United States - which is a gem where an Asian tries to convince the court (an overtly racist court) that he is actually white.

 

I note that you fail to mention that the decision in Texas is being set aside until higher court rules...in other words ban is still in effect unless it causes a serious burden on an applicant(s).

 

Yes, there is a stay on the ruling pending appeal.  There is also a stay in Utah just as there was in CA with respect to Prop 8.  It's part of the process.  No need to worry, the appeal will fail and the stay will be lifted - these things take time.

 

And yes, there is enough SCOTUS history that we know not to take anything as set in stone.  The data I presented was meant to represent a very clear trend within our judicial system.

[jkwilliams]

That's because I feel no need to spend the time justifying my intellectual or spiritual conclusions on the matter.  That's what "moving on" means.

 

You are welcome to your legal interpretations.  But since I don't see any courts agreeing with them, I see no need to debate them.

 

Exactly. From a non-legal perspective, I'm happy that my gay and lesbian friends will be able to enjoy the same rights and responsibilities that I do. The contempt and discrimination leveled at gays is rightfully headed toward the garbage heap of history, and our society is finally acknowledging that these are our brothers and sisters, not sick perverts who should be rounded up and prosecuted. From a legal perspective, I'm happy to see that the courts recognize the poor reasons given for discrimination and recognize that gays and lesbians are citizens of equal value and rights as any other citizens.

[Daniel2]

I note that you fail to mention that the decision in Texas is being set aside until higher court rules...in other words ban is still in effect unless it causes a serious burden on an applicant(s).

Regarding the deliberate refusal/denial to recognize the obvious and rapidly growing judicial and legal consensus that marriage bans for gay couples are unconstitutional, I'm reminded of Monty Python and the Holy Grail... paraphrased:

"I just cut your arm off."

"No, you didn't."

"It's LYING ON THE GROUND next to you!"

"No its not. It's just a flesh wound."

"You're a looney."

"I am INVINCIBLE! The back knight ALWAYS wins!"

"...right...I'm off."

"Coward! Come back here.... I'll bite your legs off!!"

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=D2IPU-PiD8PaoASI64D4BQ&url=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DzKhEw7nD9C4&cd=1&ved=0CDMQtwIwAA&usg=AFQjCNGxP1prcn360WWm2ua4xFqwR06LRA&sig2=y2JK47Ms59obKzI7GIepWQ

Regarding the Kentucky decision, it was announced yesterday that there will not be a stay:

Judge: Final order requiring Ky. to recognize same-sex marriages expected Thursday

LOUISVILLE — A federal judge said Wednesday afternoon that he would issue a final order within 24 hours requiring Kentucky to immediately recognize same-sex marriages performed outside the state.

In response, lawyers for the attorney general's office told U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II at a hearing that the state would "very promptly" decide whether to appeal the order.

Heyburn told lawyers that his final order will not include a stay postponing it from taking effect. "There could be some confusion" among Kentuckians who quickly seek legal benefits stemming from their same-sex marriages, such as joint tax-filing status, if the state appeals 30 days later and delays the implementation of the order or throws its future into question, Heyburn cautioned.

Gov. Steve Beshear and Attorney General Jack Conway, both Democrats, are defendants in the lawsuit. Attorneys for the state did not introduce evidence against same-sex marriage while the suit was being argued, limiting the case to issues of law.

Four same-sex couples who legally wed outside Kentucky sued the state last year for recognition of their marriages.

Heyburn issued a preliminary order Feb. 12 striking down portions of a 1998 state law and a 2004 state constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman, and prohibiting the recognition of same-sex marriages from states where they are legal.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees equal protection of the law from state to state, so Kentucky cannot deny people their fundamental rights, such as the right to marriage, Heyburn wrote at the time.

Civil rights groups are urging Beshear and Conway to not appeal Heyburn's order when it's final. Religious conservative groups are urging the opposite.

Also Wednesday, Heyburn allowed a new group of plaintiffs to intervene in the case and demand that Kentucky county clerks issue marriage certificates to same-sex couples. The new plaintiffs are two Jefferson County couples: Timothy Love and Lawrence Ysunza, who have lived together for 33 years, and Maurice Blanchard and Dominique James, who have been together for 10 years.

However, Heyburn denied the new plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction, a court ruling that immediately would require Kentucky to issue marriage certificates to same-sex couples. The new case must move through the legal process just as the original case did because some of its facts are unique, the judge said.

"I've got a couple of plaintiffs who have been waiting for 30 years to get married," one of the plaintiffs' attorneys, Daniel Canon, told Heyburn. "The court has already ruled on their constitutional rights in the matter. I don't think they should have to wait any longer."

Heyburn responded: "I appreciate that people have waited a long time, but I think it's more important that the process be fair. We're talking about a matter of months."

The Family Foundation of Kentucky attended Wednesday's hearing and said it will file a friend-of-the-court brief against the new plaintiffs, arguing that Kentucky should not issue marriage certificates to same-sex couples.

"In 2004, the question was put before the Kentucky voters, who overwhelmingly approved the definition of traditional marriage between a man and a woman.

"Obviously that was a recent action by Kentucky voters and we intend to defend the expression of that sentiment," said Stan Cave, attorney for the Family Foundation.

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2014/02/26/3109686/judge-final-order-requiring-ky.html#storylink=cpy

Edited February 27, 2014 by Daniel2

[wenglund]

 But since I don't see any courts agreeing with them, I see no need to debate them.

 

This is a perfect example of what I said earlier. Subgenius listed several court cases that agree with what he or she has said, and I could list another 4 or 5, if not more, and yet you "don't see any courts agreeing." Clearly, all you seem capable of seeing are those things that reinforce your position. I am hard pressed to recall a time where I have personally witnessed this puzzling level of confirmation bias. Is it any wonder that you can't see that the emporer has no clothes?

 

At least you are not alone. Astonishing!

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

This is a perfect example of what I said earlier. Subgenius listed several court cases that agree with what he or she has said, and I could list another 4 or 5, if not more, and yet you "don't see any courts agreeing." Clearly, all you seem capable of seeing are those things that reinforce your position. I am hard pressed to recall a time where I have personally witnessed this puzzling level of confirmation bias. Is it any wonder that you can't see that the emporer has no clothes?

 

At least you are not alone. Astonishing!

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I apologize, I thought I had been clear in my previous posts but I didn't clarify in the statement that you just quoted.

 

Since the SCOTUS decision in U.S. v Windsor (June 2013), all of the judges have ruled in favor of equality for our gay & lesbian citizens.  Have I missed a case that went differently?

 

I know that we can go back in time and debate a variety of cases that would seem to have precedence in the matter.  I just don't have an interest in doing so.

Edited February 27, 2014 by rockpond

[jkwilliams]

I apologize, I thought I had been clear in my previous posts but I didn't clarify in the statement that you just quoted.

 

Since the SCOTUS decision in U.S. v Windsor (June 2013), all of the judges have ruled in favor of equality for our gay & lesbian citizens.  Have I missed a case that went differently?

 

I know that we can go back in time and debate a variety of cases that would seem to have precedence in the matter.  I just don't have an interest in doing so.

 

That is correct. Wade is right that earlier court rulings sometimes supported the states, but since Windsor, every case I can think of has used Windsor as precedent and ruled against the states.

 

If Wade has a post-Windsor example, I'm interested in hearing it.

[california boy]

That is correct. Wade is right that earlier court rulings sometimes supported the states, but since Windsor, every case I can think of has used Windsor as precedent and ruled against the states.

 

If Wade has a post-Windsor example, I'm interested in hearing it.

Well to quote Wade himself

 

Clearly, all you seem capable of seeing are those things that reinforce your position. I am hard pressed to recall a time where I have personally witnessed this puzzling level of confirmation bias. Is it any wonder that you can't see that the emporer has no clothes?

 

 

I don't think we will see Wade agreeing with any of these multiple court cases any time soon.  He seems to have answers that have eluded multiple legal firms that have been trying to continue this disgraceful discrimination against gay couples.

 

Astonishing.

[pogi]

Is it okay to insert homosexual themes into Children's programming?

 

They have been doing it for years.

 

This one made me laugh pretty hard!

 

[jkwilliams]

Well to quote Wade himself

 

 

I don't think we will see Wade agreeing with any of these multiple court cases any time soon.  He seems to have answers that have eluded multiple legal firms that have been trying to continue this disgraceful discrimination against gay couples.

 

Astonishing.

I've known Wade for many years. He's consistent, anyway.

[wenglund]

That is correct. Wade is right that earlier court rulings sometimes supported the states, but since Windsor, every case I can think of has used Windsor as precedent and ruled against the states.

 

If Wade has a post-Windsor example, I'm interested in hearing it.

 

To my knowledge, the two or three SSM cases filed in federal district courts that have been tried since Windsor (which had to do with federal law, and not state law), the rulings by the judges have gone against the states. There is no denying that.

 

However, lets not forget what was being disputed that prompted my comment. Certain participants here were claiming that the lower courts hadn't found the states to have had a rational basis for legally defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Where, in truth, they had.

 

Also, it should be noted that the slim majority opinion in Windsor did not rest on to the question of rational basis or other levels of scrutiny. In fact, the riuling explicitly states:

 

"But the Court certainly does not apply anything that resembles that deferential framework [i.e. rational basis]. See Heller v. Doe, 509 U. S. 312, 320 (1993)(a classification “‘must be upheld . . . if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts’” that could justify it). The majority opinion need not get into the strict-vs.-rational-basis scrutiny question, and need not justify its holding under either, because it says that DOMA is un-constitutional as “a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution,” (See HERE)

 

So, Windsor it isn't exactly pertinent.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[jkwilliams]

To my knowledge, the two or three SSM cases filed in federal district courts that have been tried since Windsor (which had to do with federal law, and not state law), the rulings by the judges have gone against the states. There is no denying that.

 

However, lets not forget what was being disputed that prompted my comment. Certain participants here were claiming that the lower courts hadn't found the states to have had a rational basis for legally defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Where, in truth, they had.

 

Also, it should be noted that the slim majority opinion in Windsor did not rest on to the question of rational basis or other levels of scrutiny. In fact, the riuling explicitly states:

 

"But the Court certainly does not apply anything that resembles that deferential framework [i.e. rational basis]. See Heller v. Doe, 509 U. S. 312, 320 (1993)(a classification “‘must be upheld . . . if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts’” that could justify it). The majority opinion need not get into the strict-vs.-rational-basis scrutiny question, and need not justify its holding under either, because it says that DOMA is un-constitutional as “a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution,” (See HERE)

 

So, Windsor it isn't exactly pertinent.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Windsor is pertinent because it has been cited in every case since then.