the traditional definition of marriage insofar as insofar as it does not …that – include same-sex couples, insofar as it is a gender definition is irrational and can only be explained, as a result of anti-gay malice and a bare desire to harm…. (Hollingsworth, 13, lines 4-9). The expression, can closely relate to ideas found in other “animus,” constitutional concepts, such as basis”, where the idea can be used to find a “rational law unconstitutional, no matter its basis.” In fact, constitutional interpretation “rational uses a finding of the absence of basis” in a statute to imply the existence of “rational Also note the implicature in Justice Kagan’s use of a rhetorical question, when “animus.” the Justice discussed the question of animus: that what happened in 1996?.... (Windsor, 74, line 15). +>The speaker …Is believes or at least expects the answer is yes. Here is an indirect speech act whose tone, when listening to the argument, of positive assertion implicates an answer of Yes. One also finds the doctrine in Equal Protection analysis and the Equal Protection Clause, oft mentioned in Windsor’s case: the Executive Branch to comply with the Equal Protection …told Clause….(Windsor, 9, line 16-17). equal protection analysis in this case should focus on two fundamental …The points….(Windsor, 80, line 19). think the question under the Equal Protection Clause is .…(Windsor, 96, lines …I 17-18). The noun-noun compound could be read, +> In this case, the analysis of protections that are equal. But the reference is to a legal analysis about fairness, discrimination and the U.S. Constitution’s 14th amendment (where the Equal Protection Clause is found).
…that the traditional definition of marriage insofar as – insofar as it does not include same-sex couples, insofar as it is a gender definition is irrational and can only be explained, as a result of anti-gay malice and a bare desire to harm…. (Hollingsworth, 13, lines 4-9). The expression, “animus,” can closely relate to ideas found in other constitutional concepts, such as “rational basis”, where the idea can be used to find a law unconstitutional, no matter its “rational basis.” In fact, constitutional interpretation uses a finding of the absence of “rational basis” in a statute to imply the existence of “animus.” Also note the implicature in Justice Kagan’s use of a rhetorical question, when the Justice discussed the question of animus: …Is that what happened in 1996?.... (Windsor, 74, line 15). +>The speaker believes or at least expects the answer is yes. Here is an indirect speech act whose tone, when listening to the argument, of positive assertion implicates an answer of Yes. One also finds the doctrine in Equal Protection analysis and the Equal Protection Clause, oft mentioned in Windsor’s case: …told the Executive Branch to comply with the Equal Protection Clause….(Windsor, 9, line 16-17). …The equal protection analysis in this case should focus on two fundamental points….(Windsor, 80, line 19). …I think the question under the Equal Protection Clause is .…(Windsor, 96, lines 17-18). The noun-noun compound could be read, +> In this case, the analysis of protections that are equal. But the reference is to a legal analysis about fairness, discrimination and the U.S. Constitution’s 14th amendment (where the Equal Protection Clause is found).