Gay Marriages in States Forced by Circuit Courts to Allow Them Are Not Legal

[Silhouette]

States are not being illegally forced to do anything. The Judicial branch has power under our constitutional republic, whether you like it or not.

Yes but the Supreme Court has power over the lower courts whether you like it or not...
Ergo, states have the say on gay marriage until further notice.. It's a procedural thing. Only the US Supreme Court may overturn its own specific finding on law. You believe in the rule of federal procedure, right?

Page 14 of the Opinion: After a statewide deliberative process that enabled its citizens to discuss and weigh arguments for and against same-sex marriage, New York acted to enlarge the definition of marriage...Against this background of lawful same-sex marriage in some States, the design, purpose, and effect of DOMA should be considered as the beginning point in deciding whether it is valid under the Constitution United States v. Windsor

 

[Silhouette]

It's no small matter, two things:

1. To defy a Supreme Court Finding on a specific question of law (Windsor 2013 and state's role in ratifying "gay marriage" from a consensus deliberation pro/con) from underneath...and...

2. To remove the power of a state to govern itself.

So if impeachment proceedings get underway for lower federal circuit judges, don't be surprised..

 

[Silhouette]

The new Republican Congress was sworn in today.. Let's see how bad they want votes in 2016.

 

[WorldWatcher]

So if impeachment proceedings get underway for lower federal circuit judges, don't be surprised..

The new Republican Congress was sworn in today.. Let's see how bad they want votes in 2016.

30 days right? That's what I believe you said before.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

So if impeachment proceedings get underway for lower federal circuit judges, don't be surprised..

The new Republican Congress was sworn in today.. Let's see how bad they want votes in 2016.

30 days right? That's what I believe you said before.


>>>>

I said that the new Congress was coming in within 30 days. The timing of proceedings is up to them.

 

[Silhouette]

How do you justify a state having its power to govern be removed on behalf of what amounts to a lifestyle-cult forcing its citizens to incentivize that defective structure to marriage that strips children in it of the complimentary parent 100% of the time? That's akin to forcing a state to incentivize single parenthood! Single parents arent a "race" of people. Neither are polygamists! This is about lifestyles, deviant ones that the states' majorities are finding repugnant, DICTATING to that state "you're going to do marriage our way from now on". Keyword "do", as in a verb, as in a lifestyle..

 

[WorldWatcher]

So if impeachment proceedings get underway for lower federal circuit judges, don't be surprised..

The new Republican Congress was sworn in today.. Let's see how bad they want votes in 2016.

30 days right? That's what I believe you said before.


>>>>

I said that the new Congress was coming in within 30 days. The timing of proceedings is up to them.

So of the existing Congress or new freshman class coming in, who is T-ing up impeachment bills?


>>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

So of the existing Congress or new freshman class coming in, who is T-ing up impeachment bills?


>>>>>

It may be a moot point:

The Supreme Court justices will meet on Friday to decide whether to accept five cases from states where judges have ruled against gay marriage. That would allow the court to clarify whether states have the power to restrict marriage to a man and a woman, The Washington Post reported. Supreme Court Considers Wading Into Gay Marriage Debate

 

[WorldWatcher]

So of the existing Congress or new freshman class coming in, who is T-ing up impeachment bills?


>>>>>

It may be a moot point:

The Supreme Court justices will meet on Friday to decide whether to accept five cases from states where judges have ruled against gay marriage. That would allow the court to clarify whether states have the power to restrict marriage to a man and a woman, The Washington Post reported. Supreme Court Considers Wading Into Gay Marriage Debate

Why would it be a moot point, your previous claims were that the Judges had committed an impeachable offense and that the new Congress would take that for action.

So who in the new Congress is going to get the ball rolling?


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

So of the existing Congress or new freshman class coming in, who is T-ing up impeachment bills?


>>>>>

It may be a moot point:

The Supreme Court justices will meet on Friday to decide whether to accept five cases from states where judges have ruled against gay marriage. That would allow the court to clarify whether states have the power to restrict marriage to a man and a woman, The Washington Post reported. Supreme Court Considers Wading Into Gay Marriage Debate

Secondly, your point has been that Windsor defined that States can discriminate against homosexuals when it comes to Civil Marriage. (Which it doesn't.)

Now you are saying (through you quote), that that points needs "clarification". How can that be? You have spoken at length how in your opinion there is nothing to clarify.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Secondly, your point has been that Windsor defined that States can discriminate against homosexuals when it comes to Civil Marriage. (Which it doesn't.)

Now you are saying (through you quote), that that points needs "clarification". How can that be? You have spoken at length how in your opinion there is nothing to clarify.

Let me ask you this Worldy... Can states discriminate against polygamists when it comes to civil marriage? And next, do you think the Supremes believe that they can?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Secondly, your point has been that Windsor defined that States can discriminate against homosexuals when it comes to Civil Marriage. (Which it doesn't.)

Now you are saying (through you quote), that that points needs "clarification". How can that be? You have spoken at length how in your opinion there is nothing to clarify.

Let me ask you this Worldy... Can states discriminate against polygamists when it comes to civil marriage? And next, do you think the Supremes believe that they can?

Not a problem Silly,

Yes

and

Yes

The legal questions in polygamy <> (do not equal) the legal questions in SSCM.

>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

The legal questions in polygamy <> (do not equal) the legal questions in SSCM.

>>>>

Well either you're for "marriage equality" or you aren't. Which is it?

 

[WorldWatcher]

The legal questions in polygamy <> (do not equal) the legal questions in SSCM.

>>>>

Well either you're for "marriage equality" or you aren't. Which is it?

You didn't ask me what I'm for, you asked me "Can states discriminate against polygamists when it comes to civil marriage? And next, do you think the Supremes believe that they can?"

The basis of the question was not my philosophically opinion of polygamy, you asked two questions from a legal perspective. Can States discriminate against polygamists and do I think the SCOTUS would recognize that ability. The answer to both is "Yes".

Philosophically I have no disagreement with multi-partner marriages as long as all participants are consenting adults.


Now would you like to know the legal basis of why polgyamy (multi-partner) civil marriages are not the same as same-sex Civil Marriages (which are equal to different-sex Civil Marriages)?


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Philosophically I have no disagreement with multi-partner marriages as long as all participants are consenting adults.


Now would you like to know the legal basis of why polgyamy (multi-partner) civil marriages are not the same as same-sex Civil Marriages (which are equal to different-sex Civil Marriages)?


>>>>

The legal basis is about child welfare, isn't it? Would that be along the same lines as not incentivizing an environment where children would be guaranteed to be missing the complimentary gender (which may be their own) as "parent" 100% of the time (gay marriage and single parent homes)?

 

[WorldWatcher]

The legal questions in polygamy <> (do not equal) the legal questions in SSCM.

>>>>

Well either you're for "marriage equality" or you aren't. Which is it?

You didn't ask me what I'm for, you asked me "Can states discriminate against polygamists when it comes to civil marriage? And next, do you think the Supremes believe that they can?"

The basis of the question was not my philosophically opinion of polygamy, you asked two questions from a legal perspective. Can States discriminate against polygamists and do I think the SCOTUS would recognize that ability. The answer to both is "Yes".

Philosophically I have no disagreement with multi-partner marriages as long as all participants are consenting adults.

>>>>

Philosophically I have no disagreement with multi-partner marriages as long as all participants are consenting adults.


Now would you like to know the legal basis of why polgyamy (multi-partner) civil marriages are not the same as same-sex Civil Marriages (which are equal to different-sex Civil Marriages)?


>>>>

The legal basis is about child welfare, isn't it? Would that be along the same lines as not incentivizing an environment where children would be guaranteed to be missing the complimentary gender (which may be their own) as "parent" 100% of the time (gay marriage and single parent homes)?

No

Married couples under the law can exist under the same government struction that already exists whether they a same-sex couple or a different sex couple.

There is no legal framework to deal with partners in a Civil Marriage that exceeds two persons and the issues that are already complex enough dealing with two individuals and possibly children let alone increasing those issues exponentially with each additional spouse.

In each polygamous marriage, there would be at a minimum three legally intertwined status:

A married to B,
A married to C, and
B married to C.

Add a fourth spouse and you get:

A married to B
A married to C
A married to D
B married to C
B married to D
C married to D

Add a fifth spouse and you get:

A married to B
A married to C
A married to D
A married to E
B married to C
B married to D
B married to E
C married to D
C married to E
E married to D

Add another, etc...

So you have issues with property on who owns what, what was brought into the marriage when. If C decides he/she no longer wants to be part of the plural marriage to what extent is he/she awarded property from A, B, D, and E.

You have issues also with children but they are one of many issues. Who are the parents? The biological parents or are all adults in a plural marriage equally parents. In the event of a divorce who gets child custody? Visitation? Child support? etc...

When the discussion is about marriage between two consenting adults the current legal system will support it because laws, courts, etc... are geared toward dealing with the same situations. Linear increases in the number of spouses causes an exponential increase on the court issues in dealing with those issues.

>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

No

Married couples under the law can exist under the same government struction that already exists whether they a same-sex couple or a different sex couple.

There is no legal framework to deal with partners in a Civil Marriage that exceeds two persons and the issues that are already complex enough dealing with two individuals and possibly children let alone increasing those issues exponentially with each additional spouse.

In each polygamous marriage, there would be at a minimum three legally intertwined status:

A married to B,
A married to C, and
B married to C.

Add a fourth spouse and you get:

A married to B
A married to C
A married to D
B married to C
B married to D
C married to D

Add a fifth spouse and you get:

A married to B
A married to C
A married to D
A married to E
B married to C
B married to D
B married to E
C married to D
C married to E
E married to D

Add another, etc...

So you have issues with property on who owns what, what was brought into the marriage when. If C decides he/she no longer wants to be part of the plural marriage to what extent is he/she awarded property from A, B, D, and E.

You have issues also with children but they are one of many issues. Who are the parents? The biological parents or are all adults in a plural marriage equally parents. In the event of a divorce who gets child custody? Visitation? Child support? etc...

When the discussion is about marriage between two consenting adults the current legal system will support it because laws, courts, etc... are geared toward dealing with the same situations. Linear increases in the number of spouses causes an exponential increase on the court issues in dealing with those issues.

>>>>

What you just described is a complex contract. They exist all the time, everywhere.

Try again.

You cannot say "because polygamy requires a complex contract, it cannot be legal for these people in love to marry". Regular marriage and divorce is also complex. Will you next be arguing that it too must be eliminated?

I want to know, besides "complex contracts" why you think marriage equality doesn't apply to polygamy.

 

[WorldWatcher]

No

Married couples under the law can exist under the same government struction that already exists whether they a same-sex couple or a different sex couple.

There is no legal framework to deal with partners in a Civil Marriage that exceeds two persons and the issues that are already complex enough dealing with two individuals and possibly children let alone increasing those issues exponentially with each additional spouse.

In each polygamous marriage, there would be at a minimum three legally intertwined status:

A married to B,
A married to C, and
B married to C.

Add a fourth spouse and you get:

A married to B
A married to C
A married to D
B married to C
B married to D
C married to D

Add a fifth spouse and you get:

A married to B
A married to C
A married to D
A married to E
B married to C
B married to D
B married to E
C married to D
C married to E
E married to D

Add another, etc...

So you have issues with property on who owns what, what was brought into the marriage when. If C decides he/she no longer wants to be part of the plural marriage to what extent is he/she awarded property from A, B, D, and E.

You have issues also with children but they are one of many issues. Who are the parents? The biological parents or are all adults in a plural marriage equally parents. In the event of a divorce who gets child custody? Visitation? Child support? etc...

When the discussion is about marriage between two consenting adults the current legal system will support it because laws, courts, etc... are geared toward dealing with the same situations. Linear increases in the number of spouses causes an exponential increase on the court issues in dealing with those issues.

>>>>

What you just described is a complex contract. They exist all the time, everywhere.

Try again.

You cannot say "because polygamy requires a complex contract, it cannot be legal for these people in love to marry". Regular marriage and divorce is also complex. Will you next be arguing that it too must be eliminated?

I want to know, besides "complex contracts" why you think marriage equality doesn't apply to polygamy.

1. I didn't say anything about "loving to many", don't lie.

2. You have my legal reasoning. You don't like the answer, that's your problem.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

1. I didn't say anything about "loving to many", don't lie.

2. You have my legal reasoning. You don't like the answer, that's your problem.


>>>>

It doesn't have anything to do with liking your answer. Your reasoning is unsound. Marriage is already complex so your reasoning falls flat on its face. So what is your reason for disqualifying polygamy in "marriage equality"?