Are Children A Part Of The Gay Marriage Conversation?

[OODA_Loop]

10th AMND plain and simple

The 10th amendment was circumvented by the 14th due process and equal protection clauses.

Gay is not a protected class with equal protection. Its a State's right.

 

[RKMBrown]

10th AMND plain and simple

The 10th amendment was circumvented by the 14th due process and equal protection clauses.

Gay is not a protected class with equal protection. Its a State's right.

Please show me where the constitution says one has to be in a protected class to get due process and equal protection.

 

[OODA_Loop]

\

10th AMND plain and simple

The 10th amendment was circumvented by the 14th due process and equal protection clauses.

Gay is not a protected class with equal protection. Its a State's right.

Please show me where the constitution says one has to be in a protected class to get due process and equal protection.

It doesn't specifically.

However absent a protected class status causation there is no Constitutionality about it,

Marriage falls under the purview of the State.

 

[RKMBrown]

\

10th AMND plain and simple

The 10th amendment was circumvented by the 14th due process and equal protection clauses.

Gay is not a protected class with equal protection. Its a State's right.

Please show me where the constitution says one has to be in a protected class to get due process and equal protection.

It doesn't specifically.

However absent a protected class status causation there is no Constitutionality about it,

Marriage falls under the purview of the State.

And said state laws must meet the 14th due process clause and the 14th equal protection clause. Checkmate. The 10th Amendment does not override the 14th. It's the other way around.

 

[OODA_Loop]

\

10th AMND plain and simple

The 10th amendment was circumvented by the 14th due process and equal protection clauses.

Gay is not a protected class with equal protection. Its a State's right.

Please show me where the constitution says one has to be in a protected class to get due process and equal protection.

It doesn't specifically.

However absent a protected class status causation there is no Constitutionality about it,

Marriage falls under the purview of the State.

And said state laws must meet the 14th due process clause and the 14th equal protection clause. Checkmate.

Not so much. It is why Windsor affirmed marriage as a State's purviewed "right" and didn't checkmate the entire argument.

Where States approve it. The Feds must honor it.

Where they haven't. It doesn't exist.

My state Constitution specifically prevents it.

 

[RKMBrown]

\

The 10th amendment was circumvented by the 14th due process and equal protection clauses.

Gay is not a protected class with equal protection. Its a State's right.

Please show me where the constitution says one has to be in a protected class to get due process and equal protection.

It doesn't specifically.

However absent a protected class status causation there is no Constitutionality about it,

Marriage falls under the purview of the State.

And said state laws must meet the 14th due process clause and the 14th equal protection clause. Checkmate.

Not so much. It is why Windsor affirmed marriage as a State's purviewed "right" and didn't checkmate the entire argument.

Where States approve it. The Feds must honor it.

Where they haven't. It doesn't exist.

My state Constitution specifically prevents it.

Nah... the reason the SCOTUS did not checkmate the argument is they like to keep the issue narrowed to the case at hand more often than not.

My state constitution also specifically prevents it... These state rejections based on sexual orientation are new, I doubt they will hold up. The negative logic that they can just switch orientation if they want to get married... ROFL that's not gonna work.. the logic that society is harmed... is BS that's not gonna work. I just don't see how this type of bigotry by popular demand is gonna hold up. Not in this era of civil rights. We'll see who fixes this first, the courts through a constitutionality test or the next civil rights bill that will likely add sexual orientation to the prohibition against discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin by federal and state governments as well as some public places.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Worldy, why do you supposed the SCOTUS granted the stay on gay marriage and polygamy in Utah when Utah's AG pled on the grounds that not to do so would harm their democratic process and rights....citing Windsor 2013 as he did so?

I don't accept the premise you present. The SCOTUS didn't grant a stay on "gay marriage and polygamy" for a couple of reasons:

1. There is no case pending before the SCOTUS having to do with Utah and a ruling striking down bygamy laws (being Civilly Married to more than one person at a time).

2. The stay was issued for the case of Herbert v. Kitchen which ONLY addresses same-sex Civil Marriage.

MONDAY, JANUARY 6, 2014
ORDER IN PENDING CASE
13A687 HERBERT, GOV. OF UT, ET AL. V. KITCHEN, DEREK, ET AL.
The application for stay presented to Justice Sotomayor and
by her referred to the Court is granted. The permanent
injunction issued by the United States District Court for the
District of Utah, case No. 2:13-cv-217, on December 20, 2013, is
stayed pending final disposition of the appeal by the United
States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/010614zr_2co3.pdf​

As to Same-sex Civil Marriage, the State actors (i.e. the AG) appealed the case and asked them to issue the stay. Since the court had has not ruled on whether States can discriminate against homosexuals in terms of Civil Marriage (a question which was not part of the Windsor case) - they wanted time to examine the issue and hear the legal arguments from both sides. Since there was no clear legal basis one way (or the other), the stay prevented additional Civil Marriages which would have to be addressed in a separate case.


>>>>
>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

10th AMND plain and simple

The 10th amendment was circumvented by the 14th due process and equal protection clauses.

Gay is not a protected class with equal protection. Its a State's right.

How well did that work for Texas and Sodomy laws that were only enforced against gays?

How about Colorado when they passed Question 2 (IIRC) that removed legal protections from gays?


(The two cases were the SCOTUS ruled on that was Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans.)


>>>>

 

[OODA_Loop]

\

Gay is not a protected class with equal protection. Its a State's right.

Please show me where the constitution says one has to be in a protected class to get due process and equal protection.

It doesn't specifically.

However absent a protected class status causation there is no Constitutionality about it,

Marriage falls under the purview of the State.

And said state laws must meet the 14th due process clause and the 14th equal protection clause. Checkmate.

Not so much. It is why Windsor affirmed marriage as a State's purviewed "right" and didn't checkmate the entire argument.

Where States approve it. The Feds must honor it.

Where they haven't. It doesn't exist.

My state Constitution specifically prevents it.

Nah... the reason the SCOTUS did not checkmate the argument is they like to keep narrow the issue to the case at hand more often than not.

My state constitution also specifically prevents it... These state rejections based on sexual orientation are new, I doubt they will hold up. The negative logic that they can just switch orientation if they want to get married... ROFL that's not gonna work.. the logic that society is harmed... is BS that's not gonna work. I just don't see how this type of bigotry by popular demand is gonna hold up. Not in this era of civil rights. We'll see who fixes this first, the courts through a constitutionality test or the next civil rights bill that will likely add sexual orientation to the prohibition against discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin by federal and state governments as well as some public places.

You can't just toss out the affirmation that Windsor was founded upon the longstanding notion that marriage and the regulation and determination of what constitutes it, falls as it has historically and in law, to the State.

Homosexuality is a choice unlike any other protected class.

 

[WorldWatcher]

\

The 10th amendment was circumvented by the 14th due process and equal protection clauses.

Gay is not a protected class with equal protection. Its a State's right.

Please show me where the constitution says one has to be in a protected class to get due process and equal protection.

It doesn't specifically.

However absent a protected class status causation there is no Constitutionality about it,

Marriage falls under the purview of the State.

And said state laws must meet the 14th due process clause and the 14th equal protection clause. Checkmate.

Not so much. It is why Windsor affirmed marriage as a State's purviewed "right" and didn't checkmate the entire argument.

Where States approve it. The Feds must honor it.

Where they haven't. It doesn't exist.

My state Constitution specifically prevents it.

Windsor didn't overturn a State law, Windsor overturned a Federal law.

As to whether States can discriminate against homosexuals in terms of Civil Marriage is a question that hasn't been answered yet.

Similar to the State of Alabama which had amended their Constitution to ban interracial couples from marrying. You are right though, the right to interracial Civil Marriage didn't exist under the law until the SCOTUS recognized it in Loving v. Virginia. Prior to that Alabama's Constitutional amendment was the law in Alabama, after the ruling - well - not so much.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

\

Please show me where the constitution says one has to be in a protected class to get due process and equal protection.

It doesn't specifically.

However absent a protected class status causation there is no Constitutionality about it,

Marriage falls under the purview of the State.

And said state laws must meet the 14th due process clause and the 14th equal protection clause. Checkmate.

Not so much. It is why Windsor affirmed marriage as a State's purviewed "right" and didn't checkmate the entire argument.

Where States approve it. The Feds must honor it.

Where they haven't. It doesn't exist.

My state Constitution specifically prevents it.

Nah... the reason the SCOTUS did not checkmate the argument is they like to keep narrow the issue to the case at hand more often than not.

My state constitution also specifically prevents it... These state rejections based on sexual orientation are new, I doubt they will hold up. The negative logic that they can just switch orientation if they want to get married... ROFL that's not gonna work.. the logic that society is harmed... is BS that's not gonna work. I just don't see how this type of bigotry by popular demand is gonna hold up. Not in this era of civil rights. We'll see who fixes this first, the courts through a constitutionality test or the next civil rights bill that will likely add sexual orientation to the prohibition against discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin by federal and state governments as well as some public places.

You can't just toss out the affirmation that Windsor was founded upon the longstanding notion that marriage and the regulation and determination of what constitutes it, falls as it has historically and in law, to the State.

Homosexuality is a choice unlike any other protected class.

Do you also not throw out the fact that in Windsor the court noted that State marriage laws were limited when they violated the rights of the individuals, those rights protected by Constitutional quarantees?

State laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); but, subject to those guarantees, “regulation of domestic relations” is“an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.”

<<SNIP>>

"Against this background DOMA rejects the long established precept that the incidents, benefits, and obligations of marriage are uniform for all married couples within each State, though they may vary, subject to constitutional guarantees, from one State to the next."

<<SNIP>>

"The States’ interest in defining and regulating the marital relation, subject to constitutional guarantees, stems from the understanding that marriage is more than a routine classification for purposes of certain statutory benefits."​

The SCOTUS has yet to address whether States can discriminate based on gender with the intent to target homosexuals for discrimination.


>>>>

 

[RKMBrown]

Homosexuality is a choice unlike any other protected class.

Since when is homosexuality a protected class?

 

[OODA_Loop]

Windsor relies on the power reserved to the States as having the purview of marriage, and seeing some of those States have allowed same-sex marriage - DOMA could not prevent enjoyment of spousal Federal benefits in States where legal.

 

[Silhouette]

Windsor didn't overturn a State law, Windsor overturned a Federal law.

As to whether States can discriminate against homosexuals in terms of Civil Marriage is a question that hasn't been answered yet.

Similar to the State of Alabama which had amended their Constitution to ban interracial couples from marrying. You are right though, the right to interracial Civil Marriage didn't exist under the law until the SCOTUS recognized it in Loving v. Virginia. Prior to that Alabama's Constitutional amendment was the law in Alabama, after the ruling - well - not so much.


>>>>

Your pal Jake over at the 32 states thread says that SCOTUS isn't going to answer that question. Y'all aren't shy about lying if you think it will create an image of defeat. Whatever works right? And this is the group whose mores we're supposed to trade in longstanding values for?

Gay behaviors and polygamy [inseperable legal arguments re: "marriage equality"] are behaviors. Sticking your penis in an artificial vagina [lower digestive tract/anus] like you learned to do as a boy/adolescent does not = race. Might want to stop offending blacks, hispanics, asians etc. with that grotesque comparison.

 

[RKMBrown]

Windsor didn't overturn a State law, Windsor overturned a Federal law.

As to whether States can discriminate against homosexuals in terms of Civil Marriage is a question that hasn't been answered yet.

Similar to the State of Alabama which had amended their Constitution to ban interracial couples from marrying. You are right though, the right to interracial Civil Marriage didn't exist under the law until the SCOTUS recognized it in Loving v. Virginia. Prior to that Alabama's Constitutional amendment was the law in Alabama, after the ruling - well - not so much.


>>>>

Your pal Jake over at the 32 states thread says that SCOTUS isn't going to answer that question. Y'all aren't shy about lying if you think it will create an image of defeat. Whatever works right? And this is the group whose mores we're supposed to trade in longstanding values for?

Gay behaviors and polygamy [inseperable legal arguments re: "marriage equality"] are behaviors. Sticking your penis in an artificial vagina [lower digestive tract/anus] like you learned to do as a boy/adolescent does not = race. Might want to stop offending blacks, hispanics, asians etc. with that grotesque comparison.

hey look it's the homophobic bigoted POS back to piss on people

 

[Silhouette]

Windsor relies on the power reserved to the States as having the purview of marriage, and seeing some of those States have allowed same-sex marriage - DOMA could not prevent enjoyment of spousal Federal benefits in States where legal.

Ah, someone HAS actually read the context, repetition and emphasis in Windsor 2013!