of the controlling holding and crocker and supreme court decisions to have there was no motivation shift between domestic violence services and issues a marriage license which was then also by necessity then also feeling under the strict scrutiny analysis there is no this is the fundamental here is that there is no there is no rational relationship between these i received a marriage license and overrate reaching by the by the state which should fund this program properly we have no quarrel with the program this should be a priority for the state and they should fund it through rational connection to a legitimate state interest and the supreme court in that case that there was not that was the decision in crocker and then it was affirmed in point and then more constitutional know that they when they but the problem was that there was the first half of it was that it was there was no connection the rational basis test is to to to to parse and the strict through screening test has two parts there has to be a rational basis and the means have to be under strict scrutiny merely tailored order the rational basis that they need to be legitimate reasonable it's very deferential almost anything that they didn't would be ok but when they fail is the even the connection of that first part of the test that's why the change doesn't make any difference they could the change is not connecting domestic violence or this is to issuing a marriage license runs through the rational basis test the strict scrutiny test and the uniformity clause which requires that there be a connection to the visitation issues i think the orders of protection over clearly a marriage a neutral issue it is not well he needed you could get an order of protection even though you're married yes you could but if you're not married you made if you're in a courts the boy in court and the practical talked about if you found the connection between these two items domestic violence and marriage license or divorce you mean opening the door to many other things like that's exactly the problem the us had a problem because i used to say when i used to prosecute orders of protection attorney announced more people should not be allowed to get married until feed triggered strict scrutiny because this is a direct tax on marriage it's a direct impediment on a fundamental right so in reality it needs to be reached it has to be a compelling interest and it has to be both a compelling they might find pay eight thousand dollars to get married as opposed to stand here saying my trying to take five dollars to get me or because one of the tests is doesn't directly substantially p the fundamental grant in this case to irty five dollars fee to get marry is so for licensing from record keeping and i believe that it's been raised it while this case then pending but the additional five dollar fee and going to the segregated  to strict scrutiny would apply and was triggered but then thought that we can find a compelling interest in providing services when the courts and if the compelling interest of providing services and i'm not talking about the means incorporate one another and soon lead to a rational basis legitimate interest becomes an intermediate scrutiny becomes a substantial interest on strict scrutiny the level gets ratcheted up again in the presumption and we're not against the program you're on america i just finished my thought yes thank you thank you and avoided the voided the strict scrutiny test by saying that providing these services serve a compelling interest when characterization of this act i think that many of the arguments that are being advanced to proceed from a false premise and that is that this act rests on a presumed correlation solely between domestic violence and marriage the correlation that was addressed by the court  relationship and those aren't limited to the legal issues that are listed in the statute namely invalidity of marriage dissolution separation of all of those to be sure instantly the playoff when you receive your marriage license and get married the state itself the law so that works perfectly well in most cases actually creates carus for the person wanting to extricate themselves now please point out that there are all the things listed in the statute beyond those three but think about child custody for example and visitation when those two are not neutral as between the married and the on marriage the parent to jack for example presumes paternity on the part of the father of a child who was born in wedlock not so for someone who's born out of wedlock visitation as the illinois supreme court i mean clearly john decision a few years ago is more difficult for someone who is not in the end was not married to the mother when the child was born so in all aspects what the general assembly has recognized here is not merely that there may be some relationship between marriage and device to violence and that is indeed the relationship the plaintiffs the challenge in their complaint in their briefs and again today of all arguments but then this is the point the relationship the general assembly recognized is that illinois law itself by operation of law and again it works perfectly well is perfectly reasonable and other top tax actually serves to create additional hurdles that make it harder for someone to that the generals on the use of committed to attack by the social issues piecemeal and to address the worst problems first and i think it was all there is no doubt that domestic violence is a problem in our society and that it extends to people who are not married with the general assembly recognized here in a perfectly free to address what they believe is the most problematic aspect is that the law itself was unfortunately making it harder for people to extricate themselves and so they point reasonably chose to narrowly address that and that's why because that's the relationship that's at issue here the other comments that are made about how the fit is improper and how we can survive a rational basis issuance is triggering the initiation of these legal impediments that make it more difficult to extricate oneself from an abusive relationship is perfectly tailored is spot on and that's what the  court recognized and i would especially commend pages eight thirty eight thirty one in the appendix when the circuit court develops that point even further elaborate secada that that really is what the general assembly was doing here they recognized that there were problems t the relationship we're talking about here so you would be asking to conclude that in twenty five to forty is substantial that five out of seventy five i believe is not in anything in the middle it's not for another day yes your honor the following though is the concluding paragraphs of the decision rose is that no it may be whether the structure not isn't substantial in the words the cork used very wise to be substantial it requires a total ban it would have to prohibit people impact for call wisconsin statute in action provided that you could not get married without a judge's approval if you had if you had children that you were supporting that were not in your custody so you and you had either  absolutely true eventually from getting married that's the court's languages back the manner in which the court distinguished colophon also i don't want to say that twenty five dollars would be substantial i think the us supreme court has set the bar extraordinarily high the uniformity clause is a slightly higher clearly it's not strict scrutiny but it is slightly higher than the rational basis standard though as articulated they are they sound similar in terms of their articulation oftentimes with you know the  incident that being said for all we know i should add this person may have paid into a similar fund in their own state when they received their marriage license i simply don't see a way in which a statute becomes irrational because out of state the date of purchase we can the fees that are imposed on a marriage are related to the costs of it this is not a challenge in the filing fee for a marriage license fees like the tax that goes to peeping the marriage records would be myriads have a very hard time extricating itself from a marriage based upon having children around the institution of marriage if you will versus somebody who is not