Gay Marriage v Windsor Part II: "Separate But Equal!"

[Silhouette]

Inspired by a recent slant I've been noticing in the LGBT cult activists here, I've started a new thread to address a very important legal question that SCOTUS must not overlook when fashioning its reaffirmation of Windsor:

Read: United States v Windsor in this link:

United States v. Windsor

Nope. Your arguments are IDENTICAL to the racists over interracial marriages and Whites Only lunch counters.
Identical.
Christ, you dumbshits even argue for "separate but equal" civil marriages!
Take a good look in the mirror. You and your kind are the new segregationists.

So what this is, in case any of you pro-traditional marriage people missed it, is the LGBT cult realizes now that Windsor will almost certainly be Upheld and the matter Affirmed as a state's matter. So the new slant of attack is "well, we've ramrodded [illegally] a bunch of gay marriages in different states so now when it's up to the states we're going to sue state by state to make gay marriage legal because of the 'separate but equal' argument of "civil rights".

I say "almost certainly" because of the European Court on Human Rights recently denied the consideration of gay marriage as a human right. And that Decision is binding on 49 countries; most of whom are our allies. It was a case on appeal where a French man and woman as husband and wife appealed "as lesbians" after the husband chopped off his junk and wanted to be seen as a woman. They were suing for the right to adopt children. European Court Rules Gay Marriage not a Human Right ... Page 6 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

When I say gay marriages were done illegally, it is literally true. In Windsor, the Court was careful to say that not only is gay marriage a state question but also it always has been back to the founding of the country "in the way the Framers of the Constitution intended". The Court's intent was that voters of a state form a "discreet community" who need to all weigh in on whether or not this new and weird concept of two people of the same gender playing "husband and wife" is something that state wants for itself or not. And it Said they get to do that since the late 1700s.

What that means in legal ease is that the Court was saying that any law regarding marriage where gay marriage was in question, duly enacted by democratic processes within a state's boundaries, is a binding law and always has been since the founding of the country. These types of binding laws may only be overturned by the voters themselves because that democratic Decision was retroactively protected at the Highest Appeal Level in June of 2013; specifically with regard to gay marriage.

Now, LGBTs have very selective reading glasses on when they read Windsor [presuming they ever do]. But judges who had to read it before they overturned democratic rule within the states appealing know better. They know what the wording of Windsor meant. Their allowing these illegal loopholes for ramrodding gay marriages in the interim gray areas is grounds for their impeachment since what they've effectively done is overruled Windsor from underneath. That is contempt of Court. According to Windsor's retroactive protection of state's decision, there have been no gray areas. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for the "oh woe is me!" wails and cries and beating of the chests you're going to see in high drama when the "No separate but equal!!" hysterics whip up.
So, SCOTUS needs to be very very careful in how they word their new Decision in order to anticipate this little loophole that gays have illegally ramrodded through, using sedition and contempt for Windsor no less in order to accomplish it.

This little loophole needs to get nipped in the bud during the next Hearing on these appeals at SCOTUS or we'll be right back to lawsuits appealing on the same Decision [Windsor] asking if the Court really really meant what it said about gay marriage being up to the states since the founding of the country.

I say, make that very clear in plain language or we'll be right back at this nonsense the moment the ink is dry on the reaffirmation of Windsor in 2015...

 

[Pogo]

You ah, don't want to tell us what "Windsor" is?

OK then, keep it to yourself...

 

[Silhouette]

You ah, don't want to tell us what "Windsor" is?

OK then, keep it to yourself...

I posted the link in the OP for you. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Derideo_Te]

the European Court on Human Rights recently denied the consideration of gay marriage as a human right. And that Decision is binding on 49 countries; most of whom are our allies.

As usual the OP is spouting stupid canards. The case was about adoption by gay couples, not gay marriage, and this is what the EU judges said about gay marriage;

On the issue of gay unions, the judges said: "Where national legislation recognises registered partnerships between same sex, member states should aim to ensure that their legal status and their rights and obligations are equivalent to those of heterosexual couples in a similar situation."

Gay marriage is not a human right according to European ruling - Telegraph

Probably a whole lot of other lies and fallacies in the rest of the OP but not worth wasting time on. The OP is self admitted liar and homophobic bigot who conflates pedophilia and child abuse with two people marrying the consenting adult of their choice as allowed by the 14th Amendment clause of equality under the law.

 

[Silhouette]

the European Court on Human Rights recently denied the consideration of gay marriage as a human right. And that Decision is binding on 49 countries; most of whom are our allies.

As usual the OP is spouting stupid canards. The case was about adoption by gay couples, not gay marriage, and this is what the EU judges said about gay marriage;

On the issue of gay unions, the judges said: "Where national legislation recognises registered partnerships between same sex, member states should aim to ensure that their legal status and their rights and obligations are equivalent to those of heterosexual couples in a similar situation."

Gay marriage is not a human right according to European ruling - Telegraph

Probably a whole lot of other lies and fallacies in the rest of the OP but not worth wasting time on. The OP is self admitted liar and homophobic bigot who conflates pedophilia and child abuse with two people marrying the consenting adult of their choice as allowed by the 14th Amendment clause of equality under the law.

This was a case about adoption by a gay couple who were seeking to use the fact that they were already married before the man butchered himself to play at being a woman and then who considered themselves "married lesbians" in order to use marriage as the means to access adoptable orphans for gays. If the guy did this just to try to use a legal shoehorn in France to help other gays, wow....what a stupid move.

So the European Court found that gay marriage is not a human right. And they did so in order to protect children from having to be raised in homes as starkly mentally unstable as that one...even married or not legally.. Gays have no protective rights they determined. And that is binding on 49 countries. Those countries may on their own enact some sort of rights for a demented couple like that to adopt. What the Decision means is that if gays are denied marriage or adoption in any of those 49 countries, they have no right to appeal.

 

[Silhouette]

You surely can see why the Court found that adoption was out of the question, right?

 

[Silhouette]

You ah, don't want to tell us what "Windsor" is?

OK then, keep it to yourself...

It's kind of funny but you've really illustrated the main point. To not understand Windsor is the essence of the problem.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Inspired by a recent slant I've been noticing in the LGBT cult activists here, I've started a new thread to address a very important legal question that SCOTUS must not overlook when fashioning its reaffirmation of Windsor:

Read: United States v Windsor in this link:

United States v. Windsor

Nope. Your arguments are IDENTICAL to the racists over interracial marriages and Whites Only lunch counters.
Identical.
Christ, you dumbshits even argue for "separate but equal" civil marriages!
Take a good look in the mirror. You and your kind are the new segregationists.

So what this is, in case any of you pro-traditional marriage people missed it, is the LGBT cult realizes now that Windsor will almost certainly be Upheld and the matter Affirmed as a state's matter. So the new slant of attack is "well, we've ramrodded [illegally] a bunch of gay marriages in different states so now when it's up to the states we're going to sue state by state to make gay marriage legal because of the 'separate but equal' argument of "civil rights".

I say "almost certainly" because of the European Court on Human Rights recently denied the consideration of gay marriage as a human right. And that Decision is binding on 49 countries; most of whom are our allies. It was a case on appeal where a French man and woman as husband and wife appealed "as lesbians" after the husband chopped off his junk and wanted to be seen as a woman. They were suing for the right to adopt children. European Court Rules Gay Marriage not a Human Right ... Page 6 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

When I say gay marriages were done illegally, it is literally true. In Windsor, the Court was careful to say that not only is gay marriage a state question but also it always has been back to the founding of the country "in the way the Framers of the Constitution intended". The Court's intent was that voters of a state form a "discreet community" who need to all weigh in on whether or not this new and weird concept of two people of the same gender playing "husband and wife" is something that state wants for itself or not. And it Said they get to do that since the late 1700s.

What that means in legal ease is that the Court was saying that any law regarding marriage where gay marriage was in question, duly enacted by democratic processes within a state's boundaries, is a binding law and always has been since the founding of the country. These types of binding laws may only be overturned by the voters themselves because that democratic Decision was retroactively protected at the Highest Appeal Level in June of 2013; specifically with regard to gay marriage.

Now, LGBTs have very selective reading glasses on when they read Windsor [presuming they ever do]. But judges who had to read it before they overturned democratic rule within the states appealing know better. They know what the wording of Windsor meant. Their allowing these illegal loopholes for ramrodding gay marriages in the interim gray areas is grounds for their impeachment since what they've effectively done is overruled Windsor from underneath. That is contempt of Court. According to Windsor's retroactive protection of state's decision, there have been no gray areas. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for the "oh woe is me!" wails and cries and beating of the chests you're going to see in high drama when the "No separate but equal!!" hysterics whip up.
So, SCOTUS needs to be very very careful in how they word their new Decision in order to anticipate this little loophole that gays have illegally ramrodded through, using sedition and contempt for Windsor no less in order to accomplish it.

This little loophole needs to get nipped in the bud during the next Hearing on these appeals at SCOTUS or we'll be right back to lawsuits appealing on the same Decision [Windsor] asking if the Court really really meant what it said about gay marriage being up to the states since the founding of the country.

I say, make that very clear in plain language or we'll be right back at this nonsense the moment the ink is dry on the reaffirmation of Windsor in 2015...

You've got a better handle on this aspect of the debate than I. I come from the facts of original intent in terms of common, natural, constitutional and case law, coupled with the natural order of things. My particular expertise is the reading of case law regarding immigration and nationality law, and based on what you're telling me hear I still don't have a competent grasp on things, or so it seems, relative to what World Watcher and Clayton Jones told me on the other thread. Now, I'm not saying they've got it wrong. I'm saying that I apparently read something into what they were telling me. So help me out, okay?

First, what I do know, perhaps better than anyone else I've encountered on this forum is that the Court's assertion in Windsor that the definition of marriage is up to the several states is bogus:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9696358/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9692081/

Notwithstanding, that is now the current law via judicial review. But make no mistake about it, this is the stuff of the living Constitution whereby judges have effectively amended the Constitution unilaterally in defiance of the people's prerogative in accordance with the prescribed method of amending the Constitution in Article V. It has never been up to the several states to variously define marriage among themselves. In fact, the federal government has no legitimate power to redefine marriage against the natural order of things either, though it does have the constitutional authority to universally enforce the natural order of things in that regard. Sexual relativism and the imperatives of natural law regarding inalienable human rights are not compatible! Sexual relativism is tyranny. The Court's Fifth Amendment argument, once again, is bogus.

In other words, the Court's responsibility in Windsor was to explain to the people by way of its decision that neither the federal government nor the governments of the several states can redefine marriage sans an amendment to the Constitution specifically granting them that power! In other words, the only sense in which DOMA was unconstitutional is that is it fallaciously lent credence to the notion that the several states could legitimately redefine marriage sans an amendment to the Constitution. All DOMA did was prohibit any one state from imposing its redefinition of marriage or the terms of civil unions on any other via the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Yes or No?

 

[Silhouette]

...Notwithstanding, that is now the current law via judicial review. But make no mistake about it, this is the stuff of the living Constitution whereby judges have effectively amended the Constitution unilaterally in defiance of the people's prerogative in accordance with the prescribed method of amending the Constitution in Article V. It has never been up to the several states to variously define marriage among themselves. In fact, the federal government has no legitimate power to redefine marriage against the natural order of things either, though it does have the constitutional authority to universally enforce the natural order of things in that regard. Sexual relativism and the imperatives of natural law regarding inalienable human rights are not compatible! Sexual relativism is tyranny. The Court's Fifth Amendment argument, once again, is bogus.

In other words, the Court's responsibility in Windsor was to explain to the people by way of its decision that neither the federal government nor the governments of the several states can redefine marriage sans an amendment to the Constitution specifically granting them that power! In other words, the only sense in which DOMA was unconstitutional is that is it fallaciously lent credence to the notion that the several states could legitimately redefine marriage sans an amendment to the Constitution. All DOMA did was prohibit any one state from imposing its redefinition of marriage or the terms of civil unions on any other via the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Yes or No?

Well then you should re-read Windsor because the Court in the Opinion states over and over and over and over how the definition of marriage rests within the separate states from the dawn of our country no less and the only exception to that Finding is who is covered under the 14th Amendment [they cite Loving v Virginia]. To date, no precedent has been set where a sexual subculture's behaviors and fadism has gotten special protection under the Constitution's 14th Amendment.

Windsor Found:

1. That gay marriage is weird and new [read it, it's there. They compare it to 13 year olds in New Hampshire marrying and 1st cousins in some states. They say it is in defiance of tradition/the definition that is 1,000s of years old.]

2. That states have the "unquestioned authority" to define marriage for themselves.

3. That 1 and 2 taken together they Found that the widest possible weigh-in from members of each sovereign state's "discreet community" was how marriage should be defined.

4. That once it is defined within a state, the fed has to respect that definition and I believe...

5....that not all states have to recognize gay marriage from other states.

 

[Derideo_Te]

...Notwithstanding, that is now the current law via judicial review. But make no mistake about it, this is the stuff of the living Constitution whereby judges have effectively amended the Constitution unilaterally in defiance of the people's prerogative in accordance with the prescribed method of amending the Constitution in Article V. It has never been up to the several states to variously define marriage among themselves. In fact, the federal government has no legitimate power to redefine marriage against the natural order of things either, though it does have the constitutional authority to universally enforce the natural order of things in that regard. Sexual relativism and the imperatives of natural law regarding inalienable human rights are not compatible! Sexual relativism is tyranny. The Court's Fifth Amendment argument, once again, is bogus.

In other words, the Court's responsibility in Windsor was to explain to the people by way of its decision that neither the federal government nor the governments of the several states can redefine marriage sans an amendment to the Constitution specifically granting them that power! In other words, the only sense in which DOMA was unconstitutional is that is it fallaciously lent credence to the notion that the several states could legitimately redefine marriage sans an amendment to the Constitution. All DOMA did was prohibit any one state from imposing its redefinition of marriage or the terms of civil unions on any other via the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Yes or No?

Well then you should re-read Windsor because the Court in the Opinion states over and over and over and over how the definition of marriage rests within the separate states from the dawn of our country no less and the only exception to that Finding is who is covered under the 14th Amendment [they cite Loving v Virginia]. To date, no precedent has been set where a sexual subculture's behaviors and fadism has gotten special protection under the Constitution's 14th Amendment.

Windsor Found:

1. That gay marriage is weird and new [read it, it's there. They compare it to 13 year olds in New Hampshire marrying and 1st cousins in some states. They say it is in defiance of tradition/the definition that is 1,000s of years old.]

2. That states have the "unquestioned authority" to define marriage for themselves.

3. That 1 and 2 taken together they Found that the widest possible weigh-in from members of each sovereign state's "discreet community" was how marriage should be defined.

4. That once it is defined within a state, the fed has to respect that definition and I believe...

5....that not all states have to recognize gay marriage from other states.

More ignorance from the OP!

Marrying at puberty was common practice during the Roman empire. There is a recorded marriage of a 9 year old girl in Virginia in 1689. Exceptional but it was really only in the 20th Century that age of consent laws came into common practice. (The earliest such law dates to 1275 but it considered 12 years old to be that age.)

Needless to say you keep pulling feces from your nether regions and flinging it around in desperation hoping that some of it might adhere anywhere other than in your own fetid excuse for a mind.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Well then you should re-read Windsor because the Court in the Opinion states over and over and over and over how the definition of marriage rests within the separate states from the dawn of our country no less and the only exception to that Finding is who is covered under the 14th Amendment [they cite Loving v Virginia]. To date, no precedent has been set where a sexual subculture's behaviors and fadism has gotten special protection under the Constitution's 14th Amendment.

I have read it. I know that's what the Court claimed in its precedent-setting declaration: "the Court in the Opinion states over and over and over and over how the definition of marriage rests within the separate states from the dawn of our country no less." That's the whole point. I get that. What I'm telling you: that's horse manure, false, a lie, bogus, nonsense.

My question pertains to this:

All DOMA did was prohibit any one state from imposing its redefinition of marriage or the terms of civil unions on any other via the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Yes or No?

The answer is no. It also prohibited the federal government from recognizing homo marriage for the purpose of federal laws/programs, regardless of any given state's recognition of the same. And that was the portion of the law that was struck down.

Windsor Found:

1. That gay marriage is weird and new [read it, it's there. They compare it to 13 year olds in New Hampshire marrying and 1st cousins in some states. They say it is in defiance of tradition/the definition that is 1,000s of years old.]

2. That states have the "unquestioned authority" to define marriage for themselves.

3. That 1 and 2 taken together they Found that the widest possible weigh-in from members of each sovereign state's "discreet community" was how marriage should be defined.

4. That once it is defined within a state, the fed has to respect that definition and I believe...

5....that not all states have to recognize gay marriage from other states.

So, now, the goal of homofascists is to get that struck too? An what grounds? That's the part I'm trying to understand, but I don't think I do.

 

[bodecea]

And...as the world turns...more and more Americans support legalized gay marriage.

 

[Derideo_Te]

And...as the world turns...more and more Americans support legalized gay marriage.

Yup, once ordinary Americans discovered that fire and brimstone would not rain from the heavens and that poor defenseless males like Sil would not be forced to engage in anal intercourse the religious boogeyman turned out to be yet another fabrication of the theists.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

the European Court on Human Rights recently denied the consideration of gay marriage as a human right. And that Decision is binding on 49 countries; most of whom are our allies.

As usual the OP is spouting stupid canards. The case was about adoption by gay couples, not gay marriage, and this is what the EU judges said about gay marriage;

On the issue of gay unions, the judges said: "Where national legislation recognises registered partnerships between same sex, member states should aim to ensure that their legal status and their rights and obligations are equivalent to those of heterosexual couples in a similar situation."

Gay marriage is not a human right according to European ruling - Telegraph

Probably a whole lot of other lies and fallacies in the rest of the OP but not worth wasting time on. The OP is self admitted liar and homophobic bigot who conflates pedophilia and child abuse with two people marrying the consenting adult of their choice as allowed by the 14th Amendment clause of equality under the law.

Agreed.

The OP is clearly insane.

 

[Derideo_Te]

the European Court on Human Rights recently denied the consideration of gay marriage as a human right. And that Decision is binding on 49 countries; most of whom are our allies.

As usual the OP is spouting stupid canards. The case was about adoption by gay couples, not gay marriage, and this is what the EU judges said about gay marriage;

On the issue of gay unions, the judges said: "Where national legislation recognises registered partnerships between same sex, member states should aim to ensure that their legal status and their rights and obligations are equivalent to those of heterosexual couples in a similar situation."

Gay marriage is not a human right according to European ruling - Telegraph

Probably a whole lot of other lies and fallacies in the rest of the OP but not worth wasting time on. The OP is self admitted liar and homophobic bigot who conflates pedophilia and child abuse with two people marrying the consenting adult of their choice as allowed by the 14th Amendment clause of equality under the law.

Agreed.

The OP is clearly insane.

Yup, the OP needs professional help with his anal obsession.

 

[Silhouette]

Well I guess 83% of Americans are also "insane"...lol...

And...as the world turns...more and more Americans support legalized gay marriage.

Define "support". Because the poll here at USMB says out of hundreds that responded, 83% believe that people who don't support gay marriage should not have to participate in it at all. That is the weakest "support" I've ever seen. That means only 17% of Americans believe gay marraige should be legal and enforceable as such.

Read it and weep Seawytch. It's the biggest poll response I think USMB has ever gotten: Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Derideo_Te]

Well I guess 83% of Americans are also "insane"...lol...

And...as the world turns...more and more Americans support legalized gay marriage.

Define "support". Because the poll here at USMB says out of hundreds that responded, 83% believe that people who don't support gay marriage should not have to participate in it at all. That is the weakest "support" I've ever seen. That means only 17% of Americans believe gay marraige should be legal and enforceable as such.

Read it and weep Seawytch. It's the biggest poll response I think USMB has ever gotten: Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Sheer DESPERATION Alert!

Sil is now quoting an unscientific poll in a USMB thread for "support" of his homophobia?

And needless to say it doesn't support his position either!

That poll simply states that 83% of the respondents support the separation of church and state. It doesn't say squat about whether "gay marraige should be legal and enforceable".

The absurd lengths that homophobic bigots like Sil are going to these days just demonstrates how far out of touch they are with where mainstream America is today.

Oh, and only 133 people responded, not "hundreds".

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Well I guess 83% of Americans are also "insane"...lol...

And...as the world turns...more and more Americans support legalized gay marriage.

Define "support". Because the poll here at USMB says out of hundreds that responded, 83% believe that people who don't support gay marriage should not have to participate in it at all. That is the weakest "support" I've ever seen. That means only 17% of Americans believe gay marraige should be legal and enforceable as such.

Read it and weep Seawytch. It's the biggest poll response I think USMB has ever gotten: Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Hello, Silhouette, You invited me to your OP. I have questions for you.

First of all, make no mistake about it. The Court is full it! From the beginning, the states were subservient to the federal government regarding the institution of marriage. The Court’s argument to the contrary is bull.

Lefty's historical revisionism is right? The Court's conservatives are wrong?

Right. Utah, for example, was going to become a state whilst it allowed polygamy?

Not.

For all practical intents and purposes in terms of federal laws and programs, any given state may dictate to the federal government of all the people what marriage is? Since when?

Answer: since Windsor, that's when!

So now it really doesn't matter what my state says about it in terms of federal laws and programs, as all the people of the Republic are affected. One state can just up and say "Boo!" and the federal government of all the people goes "EEK!"

And the Court's reasoning, predicated on it's obviously fallacious historical claim regarding the sociopolitical ethos of this nation's founding, in its anticipatory response to the polygamy objection is utterly inane and just as arbitrary.

From here on out if the Court is going to be logically consistent, so to speak, and given the fact that it laid the groundwork in Windsor via the Fifth Amendment for a "couple" in any given state that recognizes "homo marriage" to impose its view universally against the federal laws and programs of all the people, how can it resist the obvious challenge to come on the basis of a corrupt application of the Fourteenth's Equal Protection Clause?

To be sure, such a thing would be a corrupt application of it, but it does logically follow, after a fashion, from the majority's corruption of history.

If the federal government in terms of federal laws and programs cannot legitimately treat "married" homo couples in any given state that recognizes "homo marriage" differently than the way it treats married heterosexual couples, how can it treat other "married" homo couples differently in terms of federal laws and programs in those states that don't recognize "homo marriage"?

Just because the Court narrowly applied its bull to Section Three of DOMA pursuant to the plaintiff's argument in Windsor, doesn't mean that the Court can't strike down the rest of DOMA or do even more than that on the basis of the Fourteenth with another precedent-setting decision out of nowhere.

 

[Silhouette]

...From here on out if the Court is going to be logically consistent, so to speak, and given the fact that it laid the groundwork in Windsor via the Fifth Amendment for a "couple" in any given state that recognizes "homo marriage" to impose its view universally against the federal laws and programs of all the people, how can it resist the obvious challenge to come on the basis of a corrupt application of the Fourteenth's Equal Protection Clause?

To be sure, such a thing would be a corrupt application of it, but it does logically follow, after a fashion, from the majority's corruption of history.

If the federal government in terms of federal laws and programs cannot legitimately treat "married" homo couples in any given state that recognizes "homo marriage" differently than the way it treats married heterosexual couples, how can it treat other "married" homo couples differently in terms of federal laws and programs in those states that don't recognize "homo marriage"?

Just because the Court narrowly applied its bull to Section Three of DOMA pursuant to the plaintiff's argument in Windsor, doesn't mean that the Court can't strike down the rest of DOMA or do even more than that on the basis of the Fourteenth with another precedent-setting decision out of nowhere.

Windsor was already Decided June 2013. And in it the Court first formally recognized states' sovereignty to define marriage under the question of gay marriage. Then it used that assigned jurisdiction and declaration of "unquestioned authority" to strike down part of DOMA.

In other words you cannot have your cake and eat it too. You cannot as an LGBT cultee declare "victory!" on Windsor and then say "oh...but wait!" on Windsor's assignment of state sovereignty on the question of gay marriage.

The Court didn't say that "states can only say yes to gay marriage". All that was said as to the 14th was "unless the 14th ....Loving...applies". They didn't say it did apply in Windsor BTW. In fact at the end of the Opinion the Court openly declared that as of It's Decision, only some states had legal gay marriage. So if you're looking for a vote of confidence on Them applying the 14th to gay sexual behaviors' cult, don't get your hopes up...

But the real question of this thread is once the Court reminds everyone [including activist judges] that ignorance of Windsor is no excuse for violating it, what "marriages" will remain legal, if any, who defied Windsor [that made this state power retroactive to the founding of the country]?

You cite that the fed got involved in denying Utah statehood unless they dropped polygamy. Polygamy technically was not voted on by all members of the territory of Deseret [Utah's old name] which was a fledgling state back in the day. Actually it was a territory. So it didn't have state sovereignty at all at the time. The fed saw mormonism as a cult and polygamy as intrinsic to that cult. More than a statement about marriage, the fed was trying to "break the cult mentality" by attacking one of its main components.

So since you brought up the Utah/statehood question, what date do you think would be the retroactive assignment of state sovereignty on marriage?

 

[Silhouette]

...That poll simply states that 83% of the respondents support the separation of church and state. It doesn't say squat about whether "gay marraige should be legal and enforceable".

The absurd lengths that homophobic bigots like Sil are going to these days just demonstrates how far out of touch they are with where mainstream America is today.

Oh, and only 133 people responded, not "hundreds".

83% of respondents to the poll believe that people who have beliefs that conflict with promoting a gay sex cult should not have to be required to do so as a matter of law. That is some weak ass "support for gay marriage".

133 people are "hundreds". Any amount over 100 is a multiple of 100 so the plural "hundreds" applies..

Again, it's one of the largest responses to a poll I've seen at USMB and as such shows the level of interest in that 83% and how they responded to the topic. That is some strong-ass support. As in a strong "NO" to forcing gay marriage on people who don't believe in it. What does that say about the 83% who voted that way and their feelings about gay marriage in general? It says they aren't all that hot about it.

Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

So when you hear LGBT cultees assuring you how " a majority of Americans support gay marriage" you can be sure that support is very very weak, if not an outright lie..