witnesses, and a jury trial.” As the rights to counsel, confrontation, and trial are guaranteed by both the federal and state constitutions, Appellant urges that we should apply strict scrutiny to the amendment. However, this is not the proper analysis. When analyzing a substantive due process claim, a court must first craft “a careful description of the asserted right” in order to “narrowly frame the specific” issue before it so as not to “stray into broader constitutional vistas than are called for by the facts of the case at hand.” Moore, 410 F.3d at 1344 (quotations omitted). Additionally, the fact that a statute may have an indirect effect on a fundamental right does not subject it to strict scrutiny. See id.; McGuire v. Montgomery, 2013 WL 1336882, at *11 (M.D.Ala. Mar. 29, 2013) (<HOLDING>); In re San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire
recognizing that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals holding that inperson reporting requirements in iowa sex offender registry statute did not infringe on right to interstate travel holding that sex offender registration statute did not infringe on the appellants fundamental right to marry and carry on relationships because it did not directly regulate the family relationship even though it had the result of preventing appellant from living with his mother or wife since they did not reside at a compliant address recognizing a fundamental right to marry holding that sex offender registration and notification do not constitute punishment