Originally Posted by foundit66

Remember the Terry Schiavo case?
There was a legislative action to SPECIFICALLY legislate what was going to happen in HER case.
Which is expressly unconstitutional...

I saw video-clips of the legislature ACKNOWLEDGING the courts would overturn this, because they WERE DOING something that was unconstitutional.

And then the courts overturned the legislation.

Colorado enacted their "amendment 2" which actually did a lot more than the anti-gay proponents wanted to admit.
And it was unconstitutional, and struck down by the courts.

There are a lot of anti-gay legislation out there that goes well beyond "marriage is just one man and one woman" into the land of FORBIDDING the government, corporations (at least it has been applied as such), and other potential entities from giving benefits to gay couples when those benefits are also given to married couples.
And a strong argument can be made (IMO) that going that extra mile is unconstitutional in a similar regard that the Colorado Amendment 2 was unconstitutional.



I think the key word in your explanation is RATIONAL.
Take the second amendment fights that are going on now.
Obviously would qualify as something your quoted statement would apply to, yet those laws against the second amendment exist anyways.

%@#$ Berkeley in their fight against the marines is another example.

I would propose that the main reason that the scenario you describe does not happen in some cases, is because people aren't acting "rationally".