Notice: Payments for answers will end 4/10/2017. Click for more info.
You have new items in your feed. Click to view.
Question and answer
Q: If the Supreme Court were to rule that gay marriage is a fundamental right, under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, that would mean (Points : 1) each state would still
be able to decide for itself whether it recognizes gay marriage or not. no state may distinguish between gay marriage and heterosexual marriage because that would effectively create invidious distinctions. that Congress must create a public assistance program for gay couples. that only married people enjoy protection under the Equal Protection Clause.
A: each state would still be able to decide for itself whether it recognizes gay marriage or not.
Get an answer
Original conversation
[object Object]User: If the Supreme Court were to rule that gay marriage is a fundamental right, under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, that would mean (Points : 1) each state would still be able to decide for itself whether it recognizes gay marriage or not. no state may distinguish between gay marriage and heterosexual marriage because that would effectively create invidious distinctions. that Congress must create a public assistance program for gay couples. that only married people enjoy protection under the Equal Protection Clause.

Weegy: each state would still be able to decide for itself whether it recognizes gay marriage or not.
newbre|Points 50|

User: The Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment means (Points : 1) citizens of the United States may travel across state lines without documentation. states must all have the exact same laws as each other. that if one state recognizes gay marriage all states must recognize gay marriage. that whatever recognized rights one has as a citizen must be recognized by all states.

Weegy: that whatever recognized rights one has as a citizen must be recognized by all states.
kamil1218|Points 60|

User: Gideon v. Wainwright overturned (Points : 1) Powell v. Alabama. Roe v. Wade. Mapp v. Ohio. Betts v. Brady.

Weegy: Gideon v. Wainwright overturned -> Betts v. Brady
sujaysen|Points 3653|

User: idea of original intent claims that (Points : 1) judges should try to understand what the views of those who authored certain provisions of the Constitution. judges should interpret the Constitution on the basis of what the Framers and later authors of various amendments intended when they wrote them. judges who abide by the original intent adapt the intended meaning of the Constitution to modern circumstances. judges should abide by original intent only when it is consistent with mainstream public opinion.

Question
Asked 2/10/2013 8:58:33 PM
0 Answers/Comments
New answers
Rating

There are no new answers.

Comments

There are no comments.

Add an answer or comment
Log in or sign up first.
27,012,243 questions answered
*
Get answers from Weegy and a team of really smart lives experts.
S
L
Points 256 [Total 274] Ratings 0 Comments 186 Invitations 7 Offline
S
L
R
Points 145 [Total 296] Ratings 1 Comments 5 Invitations 13 Offline
S
L
Points 130 [Total 130] Ratings 0 Comments 130 Invitations 0 Offline
S
R
L
R
P
R
P
R
Points 66 [Total 734] Ratings 0 Comments 6 Invitations 6 Offline
S
1
L
L
P
R
P
L
P
P
R
P
R
P
R
P
P
Points 62 [Total 13329] Ratings 0 Comments 62 Invitations 0 Offline
S
L
1
R
Points 34 [Total 1450] Ratings 2 Comments 14 Invitations 0 Offline
S
L
Points 10 [Total 187] Ratings 0 Comments 0 Invitations 1 Offline
S
Points 10 [Total 13] Ratings 0 Comments 10 Invitations 0 Offline
S
Points 10 [Total 10] Ratings 0 Comments 0 Invitations 1 Offline
S
Points 2 [Total 2] Ratings 0 Comments 2 Invitations 0 Offline
* Excludes moderators and previous
winners (Include)
Home | Contact | Blog | About | Terms | Privacy | © Purple Inc.