The first question is whether this potential piece of legislation would violate the SDP and whether divorce is a fundamental right. The SDP is based on the due process clause in the 5th and 14th Amendments. The SDP is a constitutional safeguard that limits state power, regardless of how fair the safeguard procedures may substantially limit state power. (Griswold) For someone to raise an SDP issue, there must be state action that prohibits or burdens a person's liberty. Whether the issue is based on traditional notions or the text of the Constitution, the issue will be analyzed with careful scrutiny because it is a fundamental right and more modern issues are analyzed on rational grounds. (Palko) The fundamental rights that have received the most scrutiny are those that our Constitution protects such as marriage, family and privacy. (Griswold) Modern issues of freedom, which are not traditionally rooted in our society, are valued at a lower level, such as assisted suicide and adultery. (Glucksberg, Michael H. v. Gerald D.) Divorce can be considered a fundamental right because it is associated with everything that is considered a fundamental right. Getting married is a fundamental right and incorporating divorce is not far away. (Virginia) There is a fundamental right to have a family and to sex, but it is also a fundamental right to prevent having children. (Moore, Roe v. Wade, and Griswold) These fundamental rights interact just like marriage and divorce. You might try to argue that it is not based on texts or traditions, but both marriage and divorce have been around for a long time. Courts should treat divorce as a fundamental right. With divorce recognized as a fundamental right, the court eva… halfway through the paper… data showed they were more likely to do so than women. In this legislation, statistics collected show that men are more likely to be in a relationship, that men are more likely to earn more, and that women take care of the family. All this means that men would leave their families and families would be left without a main source of income. The Court in Craig did not find the statistics to be a strong enough argument to demonstrate a substantial reason in favor of the legislation. Here the statistics are not even as correlated with each other as they were in Craig and do not fully show a substantive reason. There are four compelling lines to show why the legislation should be passed, but these lines show no real, substantive reason to discriminate against an entire gender by not allowing them to file for divorce. The legislation in question fails the I/S test and would be repealed.