Gay Marriage, Is It Really Legal in All 50 States & Who Has Standing To Challenge It?

[Silhouette]

Obergefell is fatally-flawed on about four different levels.

All it would take for standing is for a state to deny gays a marriage license based on their own writing of marriage laws; citing Windsor 2013. Then Windsor would be pitted against Obergefell and Obergefell would lose. Since Obergefell did not seek to overturn Windsor, and the two cases' opinions are diametrically opposed on the issue of states having the final say on marriage definition, the conflict would be referred to the US Constitution to resolve either for the state or for the gay couple (polygamists?) seeking marriage there. If the new USSC finds that there is no language that overturns Windsor's **56-assertions that marriage definition is exclusively up to the states, Obergefell is defunct and the state would win the case.

** Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

Not sure on who would have standing to have Obergefell thrown out for violating Caperton vs A.T. Massey Coal 2009 (USSC) on the grounds that Ginsburg openly flaunted her bias to the press just weeks before the Hearing in 2015....where she was asked to, but refused to recuse herself...

Then there's the issue of who would have standing to challenge its conflicting Constitutionality citing the 14th Amendment as its justification where polygamy and other types of marriages derived from lifestyles "other than" one man/one woman still (arbitrarily and unfairly re: 14th Amendment) cannot marry. Think: polygamy & incest. If you cite a damage to children for their adults not being able to marry as the justification for Obergefell, you cannot arbitrarily choose which children will remain 'damaged' by their adults STILL NOT able to marry. Either all children must be "saved from the damage" or else marriage is approved based on some other rationale.

Obergefell is the swiss cheese of USSC decisions, so full of holes that Scalia simply couldn't take living in the same universe as that decision.

So take your pick. But there are some cases where there would be standing to challenge it. Another is, two adults cannot have a contract that also binds children involved (speaking of damaging children as rationale) away from a loving mother or father for life. Gay marriage uniquely does this where no other marriage does. Children had no representation unique to their own interests at Obergefell in the radical contract-revision hearing that sought to apply to all 50 States. Then, they were treated as legal chattel while the court hypocritically fawned poetic over their unique plight and interest in marriage. Also, children of gay couples who found the experience detrimental and wanted their amicus brief considered at Obergefell, were denied such input. Did you get that? Young adults who just came through the experimental marriages had negative things to say about being denied a father or mother and the USSC under the liberal majority DENIED their input wholesale.

So, Alabama, North Dakota, Arkansas, Maine, Utah, Kansas, Oklahoma etc. deny gay people a marriage license if that's what your state said doesn't qualify. Do it for the kids. Otherwise, your state may be enabling child abuse by sanctioning and rewarding contracts that harm them for life.

 

[mdk]

Yes, it is really legal in every state. Time to get over it and find a new unhealthy obsession to fixate on.

 

[Silhouette]

Yes, it is really legal in every state. Time to get over it and find a new unhealthy obsession to fixate on.

Actually according to Windsor 2013 (which Obergefell did NOT seek to overturn) it is NOT legal in every state. Better check Windsor again because your memory is slipping. Use the link in the OP to find the 56 quotes from Windsor affirming that states define marriage and not the fed.

In California for instance, gay marriage is not legal according to Windsor 2013. So, unless you're saying Windsor was overturned by Obergefell (which you know it wasn't and the opposite is true: Obergefell cited it as an authority), gay marriage is ILLEGAL in CA and many other states.

One state. That's all it takes for standing. You're a stickler for standing, right mdk? Or is that your buddy Skylar?

 

[mdk]

Yes, it is really legal in every state. Time to get over it and find a new unhealthy obsession to fixate on.

Actually according to Windsor 2013 (which Obergefell did NOT seek to overturn) it is NOT legal in every state. Better check Windsor again because your memory is slipping. Use the link in the OP to find the 56 quotes from Windsor affirming that states define marriage and not the fed.

You’ve said this exact same statement numerous times over the years and yet...

Move on already.

 

[80zephyr]

Yes, it is really legal in every state. Time to get over it and find a new unhealthy obsession to fixate on.

Actually according to Windsor 2013 (which Obergefell did NOT seek to overturn) it is NOT legal in every state. Better check Windsor again because your memory is slipping. Use the link in the OP to find the 56 quotes from Windsor affirming that states define marriage and not the fed.

You’ve said this exact same statement numerous times over the years and yet...

Move on already.

I have a question. Do you believe in gun control?

Mark

 

[Silhouette]

Yes, it is really legal in every state. Time to get over it and find a new unhealthy obsession to fixate on.

Actually according to Windsor 2013 (which Obergefell did NOT seek to overturn) it is NOT legal in every state. Better check Windsor again because your memory is slipping. Use the link in the OP to find the 56 quotes from Windsor affirming that states define marriage and not the fed.

You’ve said this exact same statement numerous times over the years and yet...

Move on already.

I have a question. Do you believe in gun control?

Mark

Yes, mdk believes that individual states can actually modify the US Constitution's 2nd Amendment. He just believes that when they try to exert sovereignty on marriage re: Windsor's 56 affirmations of state-power to do so, then the non-existent insinuated partially-equal "language" (that doesn't exist, nor is even implied in the Constitution) gives the fed the right to override states' powers on that particular question.

ie: yes, mdk is a hypocrite.

 

[Bezukhov]

You tell 'em, Silhouette! Jesus said "Go forth and seize political power here on Earth! Use that power to persecute Homosexuals, and everybody else you don't approve of!!"

 

[mdk]

I have a question. Do you believe in gun control?

Mark

Nope. Sure don’t.

 

[Toronado3800]

Obergefell is fatally-flawed on about four different levels.

All it would take for standing is for a state to deny gays a marriage license based on their own writing of marriage laws; citing Windsor 2013. Then Windsor would be pitted against Obergefell and Obergefell would lose. Since Obergefell did not seek to overturn Windsor, and the two cases' opinions are diametrically opposed on the issue of states having the final say on marriage definition, the conflict would be referred to the US Constitution to resolve either for the state or for the gay couple (polygamists?) seeking marriage there. If the new USSC finds that there is no language that overturns Windsor's **56-assertions that marriage definition is exclusively up to the states, Obergefell is defunct and the state would win the case.

** Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

Not sure on who would have standing to have Obergefell thrown out for violating Caperton vs A.T. Massey Coal 2009 (USSC) on the grounds that Ginsburg openly flaunted her bias to the press just weeks before the Hearing in 2015....where she was asked to, but refused to recuse herself...

Then there's the issue of who would have standing to challenge its conflicting Constitutionality citing the 14th Amendment as its justification where polygamy and other types of marriages derived from lifestyles "other than" one man/one woman still (arbitrarily and unfairly re: 14th Amendment) cannot marry. Think: polygamy & incest. If you cite a damage to children for their adults not being able to marry as the justification for Obergefell, you cannot arbitrarily choose which children will remain 'damaged' by their adults STILL NOT able to marry. Either all children must be "saved from the damage" or else marriage is approved based on some other rationale.

Obergefell is the swiss cheese of USSC decisions, so full of holes that Scalia simply couldn't take living in the same universe as that decision.

So take your pick. But there are some cases where there would be standing to challenge it. Another is, two adults cannot have a contract that also binds children involved (speaking of damaging children as rationale) away from a loving mother or father for life. Gay marriage uniquely does this where no other marriage does. Children had no representation unique to their own interests at Obergefell in the radical contract-revision hearing that sought to apply to all 50 States. Then, they were treated as legal chattel while the court hypocritically fawned poetic over their unique plight and interest in marriage. Also, children of gay couples who found the experience detrimental and wanted their amicus brief considered at Obergefell, were denied such input. Did you get that? Young adults who just came through the experimental marriages had negative things to say about being denied a father or mother and the USSC under the liberal majority DENIED their input wholesale.

So, Alabama, North Dakota, Arkansas, Maine, Utah, Kansas, Oklahoma etc. deny gay people a marriage license if that's what your state said doesn't qualify. Do it for the kids. Otherwise, your state may be enabling child abuse by sanctioning and rewarding contracts that harm them for life.

Why should big government care who gets married in the first place?

Or do you think government should be in our bedrooms fixated with what we do with our holes and sticks?

 

[Silhouette]

You tell 'em, Silhouette! Jesus said "Go forth and seize political power here on Earth! Use that power to persecute Homosexuals, and everybody else you don't approve of!!"

Persecution is different than robbing states of the powers they were granted on marriage in Windsor. Check your notes, idiot.

Why should big government care who gets married in the first place?

Or do you think government should be in our bedrooms fixated with what we do with our holes and sticks?

Big State cares because of the children involved and their unique societies in which the children will be molded into. States care because children want and need both a loving mother and father. To incentivize anything else would be incentivizing child abuse. And you're against child abuse, right? States want to tease people into giving the mother and father to children so that single parents are motivated to keep trying to provide the necessary missing parent. The last thing a state would want to do is incentivize a contract that BANISHES children from either a mother or father for life.

 

[80zephyr]

I have a question. Do you believe in gun control?

Mark

Nope. Sure don’t.

Then why do people keep trying to push gun control?

Mark

 

[busybee01]

Obergefell is fatally-flawed on about four different levels.

All it would take for standing is for a state to deny gays a marriage license based on their own writing of marriage laws; citing Windsor 2013. Then Windsor would be pitted against Obergefell and Obergefell would lose. Since Obergefell did not seek to overturn Windsor, and the two cases' opinions are diametrically opposed on the issue of states having the final say on marriage definition, the conflict would be referred to the US Constitution to resolve either for the state or for the gay couple (polygamists?) seeking marriage there. If the new USSC finds that there is no language that overturns Windsor's **56-assertions that marriage definition is exclusively up to the states, Obergefell is defunct and the state would win the case.

** Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

Not sure on who would have standing to have Obergefell thrown out for violating Caperton vs A.T. Massey Coal 2009 (USSC) on the grounds that Ginsburg openly flaunted her bias to the press just weeks before the Hearing in 2015....where she was asked to, but refused to recuse herself...

Then there's the issue of who would have standing to challenge its conflicting Constitutionality citing the 14th Amendment as its justification where polygamy and other types of marriages derived from lifestyles "other than" one man/one woman still (arbitrarily and unfairly re: 14th Amendment) cannot marry. Think: polygamy & incest. If you cite a damage to children for their adults not being able to marry as the justification for Obergefell, you cannot arbitrarily choose which children will remain 'damaged' by their adults STILL NOT able to marry. Either all children must be "saved from the damage" or else marriage is approved based on some other rationale.

Obergefell is the swiss cheese of USSC decisions, so full of holes that Scalia simply couldn't take living in the same universe as that decision.

So take your pick. But there are some cases where there would be standing to challenge it. Another is, two adults cannot have a contract that also binds children involved (speaking of damaging children as rationale) away from a loving mother or father for life. Gay marriage uniquely does this where no other marriage does. Children had no representation unique to their own interests at Obergefell in the radical contract-revision hearing that sought to apply to all 50 States. Then, they were treated as legal chattel while the court hypocritically fawned poetic over their unique plight and interest in marriage. Also, children of gay couples who found the experience detrimental and wanted their amicus brief considered at Obergefell, were denied such input. Did you get that? Young adults who just came through the experimental marriages had negative things to say about being denied a father or mother and the USSC under the liberal majority DENIED their input wholesale.

So, Alabama, North Dakota, Arkansas, Maine, Utah, Kansas, Oklahoma etc. deny gay people a marriage license if that's what your state said doesn't qualify. Do it for the kids. Otherwise, your state may be enabling child abuse by sanctioning and rewarding contracts that harm them for life.

The genie is out of the bottle and is not going back in. A majority of voters now support gay marriage.

 

[80zephyr]

Obergefell is fatally-flawed on about four different levels.

All it would take for standing is for a state to deny gays a marriage license based on their own writing of marriage laws; citing Windsor 2013. Then Windsor would be pitted against Obergefell and Obergefell would lose. Since Obergefell did not seek to overturn Windsor, and the two cases' opinions are diametrically opposed on the issue of states having the final say on marriage definition, the conflict would be referred to the US Constitution to resolve either for the state or for the gay couple (polygamists?) seeking marriage there. If the new USSC finds that there is no language that overturns Windsor's **56-assertions that marriage definition is exclusively up to the states, Obergefell is defunct and the state would win the case.

** Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

Not sure on who would have standing to have Obergefell thrown out for violating Caperton vs A.T. Massey Coal 2009 (USSC) on the grounds that Ginsburg openly flaunted her bias to the press just weeks before the Hearing in 2015....where she was asked to, but refused to recuse herself...

Then there's the issue of who would have standing to challenge its conflicting Constitutionality citing the 14th Amendment as its justification where polygamy and other types of marriages derived from lifestyles "other than" one man/one woman still (arbitrarily and unfairly re: 14th Amendment) cannot marry. Think: polygamy & incest. If you cite a damage to children for their adults not being able to marry as the justification for Obergefell, you cannot arbitrarily choose which children will remain 'damaged' by their adults STILL NOT able to marry. Either all children must be "saved from the damage" or else marriage is approved based on some other rationale.

Obergefell is the swiss cheese of USSC decisions, so full of holes that Scalia simply couldn't take living in the same universe as that decision.

So take your pick. But there are some cases where there would be standing to challenge it. Another is, two adults cannot have a contract that also binds children involved (speaking of damaging children as rationale) away from a loving mother or father for life. Gay marriage uniquely does this where no other marriage does. Children had no representation unique to their own interests at Obergefell in the radical contract-revision hearing that sought to apply to all 50 States. Then, they were treated as legal chattel while the court hypocritically fawned poetic over their unique plight and interest in marriage. Also, children of gay couples who found the experience detrimental and wanted their amicus brief considered at Obergefell, were denied such input. Did you get that? Young adults who just came through the experimental marriages had negative things to say about being denied a father or mother and the USSC under the liberal majority DENIED their input wholesale.

So, Alabama, North Dakota, Arkansas, Maine, Utah, Kansas, Oklahoma etc. deny gay people a marriage license if that's what your state said doesn't qualify. Do it for the kids. Otherwise, your state may be enabling child abuse by sanctioning and rewarding contracts that harm them for life.

Why should big government care who gets married in the first place?

Or do you think government should be in our bedrooms fixated with what we do with our holes and sticks?

Government makes rules for our society that we live by. I don't particularly care that we have so many single parent families, but the fact is, is that, thru welfare, government created these situations.

The government, thru official mandate, has made it easier to divorce, easier to be unwed and have children, and easier for society to erode the concept of "family".

Gay marriage is simply another nail in society's coffin.

Mark

 

[mdk]

Yes, it is really legal in every state. Time to get over it and find a new unhealthy obsession to fixate on.

Actually according to Windsor 2013 (which Obergefell did NOT seek to overturn) it is NOT legal in every state. Better check Windsor again because your memory is slipping. Use the link in the OP to find the 56 quotes from Windsor affirming that states define marriage and not the fed.

You’ve said this exact same statement numerous times over the years and yet...

Move on already.

I have a question. Do you believe in gun control?

Mark

Yes, mdk believes that individual states can actually modify the US Constitution's 2nd Amendment. He just believes that when they try to exert sovereignty on marriage re: Windsor's 56 affirmations of state-power to do so, then the non-existent insinuated partially-equal "language" (that doesn't exist) gives the fed the right to override states' powers on that particular question.

ie: yes, mdk is a hypocrite.

Don’t make up positions for me, retard. Why do you always leave the part of Windor’s ruling where states get to still define marriage but still have to meet certain constitutional guarantees? You keep demanding everyone has to submit to your wild legal ramblings, but we don’t.

 

[Silhouette]

The genie is out of the bottle and is not going back in. A majority of voters now support gay marriage.

Glad to see you acknowledge that it is an irritant that is difficult to repel. Be that as it may...

...Windsor still exists as a legal authority and....the majority in California do not support gay marriage. Know why they won't put on the ballot there to repeal Prop 8 (that still exists as law in their Constitution, and requires an initiative vote to repeal)? Because they're afraid it would be defeated a THIRD time in the most liberal state in the Union.

Gay marriage was a coup based on faux statistics of which you cite in your quote above....CA is the evidence thereof.

 

[Toronado3800]

Obergefell is fatally-flawed on about four different levels.

All it would take for standing is for a state to deny gays a marriage license based on their own writing of marriage laws; citing Windsor 2013. Then Windsor would be pitted against Obergefell and Obergefell would lose. Since Obergefell did not seek to overturn Windsor, and the two cases' opinions are diametrically opposed on the issue of states having the final say on marriage definition, the conflict would be referred to the US Constitution to resolve either for the state or for the gay couple (polygamists?) seeking marriage there. If the new USSC finds that there is no language that overturns Windsor's **56-assertions that marriage definition is exclusively up to the states, Obergefell is defunct and the state would win the case.

** Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

Not sure on who would have standing to have Obergefell thrown out for violating Caperton vs A.T. Massey Coal 2009 (USSC) on the grounds that Ginsburg openly flaunted her bias to the press just weeks before the Hearing in 2015....where she was asked to, but refused to recuse herself...

Then there's the issue of who would have standing to challenge its conflicting Constitutionality citing the 14th Amendment as its justification where polygamy and other types of marriages derived from lifestyles "other than" one man/one woman still (arbitrarily and unfairly re: 14th Amendment) cannot marry. Think: polygamy & incest. If you cite a damage to children for their adults not being able to marry as the justification for Obergefell, you cannot arbitrarily choose which children will remain 'damaged' by their adults STILL NOT able to marry. Either all children must be "saved from the damage" or else marriage is approved based on some other rationale.

Obergefell is the swiss cheese of USSC decisions, so full of holes that Scalia simply couldn't take living in the same universe as that decision.

So take your pick. But there are some cases where there would be standing to challenge it. Another is, two adults cannot have a contract that also binds children involved (speaking of damaging children as rationale) away from a loving mother or father for life. Gay marriage uniquely does this where no other marriage does. Children had no representation unique to their own interests at Obergefell in the radical contract-revision hearing that sought to apply to all 50 States. Then, they were treated as legal chattel while the court hypocritically fawned poetic over their unique plight and interest in marriage. Also, children of gay couples who found the experience detrimental and wanted their amicus brief considered at Obergefell, were denied such input. Did you get that? Young adults who just came through the experimental marriages had negative things to say about being denied a father or mother and the USSC under the liberal majority DENIED their input wholesale.

So, Alabama, North Dakota, Arkansas, Maine, Utah, Kansas, Oklahoma etc. deny gay people a marriage license if that's what your state said doesn't qualify. Do it for the kids. Otherwise, your state may be enabling child abuse by sanctioning and rewarding contracts that harm them for life.

Why should big government care who gets married in the first place?

Or do you think government should be in our bedrooms fixated with what we do with our holes and sticks?

Government makes rules for our society that we live by. I don't particularly care that we have so many single parent families, but the fact is, is that, thru welfare, government created these situations.

The government, thru official mandate, has made it easier to divorce, easier to be unwed and have children, and easier for society to erode the concept of "family".

Gay marriage is simply another nail in society's coffin.

Mark

So government should decide who can and can't get married? What else do you want big government to do? Geesh.

 

[mdk]

I have a question. Do you believe in gun control?

Mark

Nope. Sure don’t.

Then why do people keep trying to push gun control?

Mark

A question for a different thread.

 

[Silhouette]

So government should decide who can and can't get married? What else do you want big government to do? Geesh.

I know what else YOU want big government to do...gun control... (mdk doesn't want you bringing "what else" up right now...lol..)

 

[mdk]

You tell 'em, Silhouette! Jesus said "Go forth and seize political power here on Earth! Use that power to persecute Homosexuals, and everybody else you don't approve of!!"

Persecution is different than robbing states of the powers they were granted on marriage in Windsor. Check your notes, idiot.

Why should big government care who gets married in the first place?

Or do you think government should be in our bedrooms fixated with what we do with our holes and sticks?

Big State cares because of the children involved and their unique societies in which the children will be molded into. States care because children want and need both a loving mother and father. To incentivize anything else would be incentivizing child abuse. And you're against child abuse, right? States want to tease people into giving the mother and father to children so that single parents are motivated to keep trying to provide the necessary missing parent. The last thing a state would want to do is incentivize a contract that BANISHES children from either a mother or father for life.

By your own dumb standards you’re comitting child abuse by having a father missing from your household. Worry about your own roof, busybody.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Obergefell is fatally-flawed on about four different levels.

All it would take for standing is for a state to deny gays a marriage license based on their own writing of marriage laws; citing Windsor 2013. Then Windsor would be pitted against Obergefell and Obergefell would lose. Since Obergefell did not seek to overturn Windsor, and the two cases' opinions are diametrically opposed on the issue of states having the final say on marriage definition, the conflict would be referred to the US Constitution to resolve either for the state or for the gay couple (polygamists?) seeking marriage there. If the new USSC finds that there is no language that overturns Windsor's **56-assertions that marriage definition is exclusively up to the states, Obergefell is defunct and the state would win the case.

** Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

Not sure on who would have standing to have Obergefell thrown out for violating Caperton vs A.T. Massey Coal 2009 (USSC) on the grounds that Ginsburg openly flaunted her bias to the press just weeks before the Hearing in 2015....where she was asked to, but refused to recuse herself...

Then there's the issue of who would have standing to challenge its conflicting Constitutionality citing the 14th Amendment as its justification where polygamy and other types of marriages derived from lifestyles "other than" one man/one woman still (arbitrarily and unfairly re: 14th Amendment) cannot marry. Think: polygamy & incest. If you cite a damage to children for their adults not being able to marry as the justification for Obergefell, you cannot arbitrarily choose which children will remain 'damaged' by their adults STILL NOT able to marry. Either all children must be "saved from the damage" or else marriage is approved based on some other rationale.

Obergefell is the swiss cheese of USSC decisions, so full of holes that Scalia simply couldn't take living in the same universe as that decision.

So take your pick. But there are some cases where there would be standing to challenge it. Another is, two adults cannot have a contract that also binds children involved (speaking of damaging children as rationale) away from a loving mother or father for life. Gay marriage uniquely does this where no other marriage does. Children had no representation unique to their own interests at Obergefell in the radical contract-revision hearing that sought to apply to all 50 States. Then, they were treated as legal chattel while the court hypocritically fawned poetic over their unique plight and interest in marriage. Also, children of gay couples who found the experience detrimental and wanted their amicus brief considered at Obergefell, were denied such input. Did you get that? Young adults who just came through the experimental marriages had negative things to say about being denied a father or mother and the USSC under the liberal majority DENIED their input wholesale.

So, Alabama, North Dakota, Arkansas, Maine, Utah, Kansas, Oklahoma etc. deny gay people a marriage license if that's what your state said doesn't qualify. Do it for the kids. Otherwise, your state may be enabling child abuse by sanctioning and rewarding contracts that harm them for life.