It denied them all legal means to seek any protections under the law. The 14th Ammendment prohibits singling out a specific class of people, without some independent and legitimate legislative end, for such forfeiture of legal protections.
Precisely.
But never mind; these tunnel-visioned single issue voters NEED a arrow to strike this man in the heart.
the proposition that opposition to homosexuality is as reprehensible as racial or religious bias ... is precisely the cultural debate that gave rise to the Colorado constitutional amendment (and to the preferential laws against which the amendment was directed). Since the Constitution of the United States says nothing about this subject, it is left to be resolved by normal democratic means, including the democratic adoption of provisions in state constitutions. This Court has no business imposing upon all Americans the resolution favored by the elite class from which the Members of this institution are selected, pronouncing that "animosity" toward homosexuality, ante, at 13, is evil. I vigorously dissent.He clearly disagrees that the Constitution plainly speaks to this issue, so would leave it to the normal democratic process and individual states.
I certainly have to respect his opinion. Whenever I find myself disagreeing with Scalia on a matter of constitutional law, my presumption is that I am wrong.
Clearly, in any case, this is not a wedge issue that should divide support for Roberts in half. There is nothing here from which one can conclude that Roberts fidelity to the constitution is in grave doubt.