Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that same-sex marriage bans in Washington state, the question of what to call the law has come to the fore.
Will the term be called a constitutional amendment?
Or a law?
There’s no simple answer, and the term may have a long and confusing history.
It’s also unclear if Washington state’s law is a valid state law or a federal law.
But we do know the law, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, is being challenged by a number of groups.
Here’s what you need to know.
The law, passed by voters in 2008, is based on the federal Equal Protection Clause, which says that all people are equal under the law.
That clause says that federal law “shall apply to every person in the same manner as other persons.”
That means that, regardless of whether the law is valid or not, it should apply to all people regardless of sexual identity or gender expression.
It says that the law can’t be used to punish same-gender couples for marriage.
So, if the law bans same- and opposite-sex couples from marrying, it could be interpreted as an unconstitutional prohibition on same-and-opposite-sex marriages, said David L. Cohen, a law professor at George Washington University and an expert on the U.S. Constitution.
A judge is expected to rule on the law this week.
Some conservative legal groups say they will challenge the law as a violation of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees that all persons shall enjoy equal protection under the laws of the United States.
The same- gender couples who were denied the right to marry in Washington said they’re also concerned about whether the state’s LGBT rights law will protect them.
They’re concerned that they won’t be able to marry and have children.
The law would require people to use restrooms and locker rooms that correspond to their biological sex.
This is not about gender identity but about the rights of people to access bathrooms and locker room facilities that correspond with their biological characteristics.
But that’s just not what’s happening in Washington State, said John H. Bailie, a professor of law at the University of Washington who has written a book about the history of the gay rights movement.
There’s an ongoing legal fight between the state and the federal government over whether same- sex couples have the right in the United State to marry, Bailies book, “The Right to Marry: The Case for Marriage Equality in America,” said.
“This is really not about marriage equality, this is about how the government defines marriage.”
The Supreme Court ruled that the 14-year-old amendment, which was part of the Defense of Marriage Act, protects people from discrimination based on their sex.
So the law could be a valid constitutional amendment, but there’s still a lot of confusion over what the law means and how it applies to same- or opposite-gender marriage.
The term “equal protection” has been around for a long time, said Mark B. Haidt, a psychologist and professor of constitutional law at Boston University.
He said the term “equality” was popularized by the Supreme of England in the 1600s, but that it was only in the 20th century that “equality of opportunity” and “equal treatment” became accepted.
The Supreme of Great Britain said equality of opportunity was the same thing as equal treatment.
The U.K. has a “right to marry,” which means that all heterosexual couples have to marry regardless of sex.
The only people who are denied the ability to marry are same-female-female couples who are married in England and Scotland, who are excluded from the right.
The other way that the Constitution protects people is by the Equal Protection clause, which means you cannot be discriminated against on the grounds of sex, Haidts book states.
That means a person is not considered equal until they are treated equally.
But people often argue that because same- Gender- or-Male-only bathrooms are not a protected right under the Constitution, same-Gender- or Male-only facilities can’t count as equal protections under the U,S.
Bill of Rights, which is the federal document that sets federal laws.
The word “rights” is sometimes used to describe those rights, and in some cases, it’s not clear what the “rights,” if any, are under the federal Bill of rights, said Jennifer Regan, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center at George Mason University.
But the term is also used to refer to rights under state and local laws, which could be constitutional rights.
But it’s also been used to mean things like voting rights, equal pay and public accommodations, said Daniel B. Paltrow, a legal professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.
The state has been arguing that its law is not a constitutional right because it does not discriminate based on sex or sexual orientation, Paltrows book states, and that it is not against