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

[Silhouette]

The voters voted to recognize marriage between man and woman in California but the 9th circus of idiots decided that didn't matter. The voters constitutional rights were overrun by a bunch of leftist retards.

Their rights were not overrun (though a public case as such would be excellent to expose what Sutton Found a la the OP here). The 9th acted improperly as to procedure. (see OP). Gay marriage is and always was illegal in California.

 

[Silhouette]

States do not have the authority to deny citizens their civil rights. When the courts invalidate laws repugnant to the Constitution, the fault lies solely with the states and their officers who should have never enforced such laws that are clearly un-Constitutional to begin with.

The states and their officers are subject to the Constitution, its case law, and the rulings of Federal courts, where state attorneys general are compelled to obey the decisions of Federal courts in accordance with Article VI of the Federal Constitution.

Tell me Clayton, does that include the civil rights of one's vote to count? (see Baker and Windsor cited in the OP)

 

[Derideo_Te]

the LGBT propaganda-tsunami from 1,000s of LGBT blogger hired hands using multiple sock puppets must really be a bummer for you.

Paranoid delusions of that magnitude should be treated professionally.

Seek mental health, stat!

 

[Statistikhengst]

Man and woman is good gay bastards are satans children. Cry babies.

Deceleration Alert!

Statistikhengst Pogo Luddly Neddite

Looks like Reb is rubbing off on other ruby colored robbies!!!

 

[mdk]

I guess those other threads weren't receiving the proper traffic so Sil felt compelled to craft another using the exact same nonsense. I see the usual anti-gay talking points concerning the 6th Circuit, Blood parents, Milk, and the APA have already been bandied about. I am little gobsmacked that pictures from pride parade haven't entered the mix but I suppose the thread is still young.

Yes, I know, a steady supply of arguments against gay marriage information from one poster on the internet with no sock puppets, compared to the LGBT propaganda-tsunami from 1,000s of LGBT blogger hired hands using multiple sock puppets must really be a bummer for you.

Do you honestly believe anyone here is hired to refute your nonsense? Hardly. Can't speak to anyone else but I do it for free. I am enriched knowing that your arguments are losing in the courts and in the court of public opinion.

 

[Silhouette]

Yes, I know, a steady supply of arguments against gay marriage information from one poster on the internet with no sock puppets, compared to the LGBT propaganda-tsunami from 1,000s of LGBT blogger hired hands using multiple sock puppets must really be a bummer for you.

Do you honestly believe anyone here is hired to refute you nonsense? Hardly. Can't speak to anyone else but I do it for free. I am enriched knowing that your arguments are losing in the courts and in the court of public opinion.

Well to be accurate, it isn't "my nonsense". You will note the citation of Judge Sutton's reasoning in the OP. Address what he says and label it with your argument.

 

[Silhouette]

The Constitution protects individual rights from the tyranny of the majority.

Where is marriage spoken of as a "right" in the US constitution? And before you cite Loving, be sure to note that LGBT are lifestyles and not race.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The Constitution protects individual rights from the tyranny of the majority.

Where is marriage spoken of as a "right" in the US constitution? And before you cite Loving, be sure to note that LGBT are lifestyles and not race.

The 14th amendment protects the rights of all Americans to equal treatment under the law. Marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults and therefore falls under the 14th amendment.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Constitution protects individual rights from the tyranny of the majority.

Where is marriage spoken of as a "right" in the US constitution? And before you cite Loving, be sure to note that LGBT are lifestyles and not race.

It can be found here in the Constitution:

FindLaw Cases and Codes

The 14th Amendment protects the rights of all persons in the United States to equal protection of (equal access to) the law, such as the right of gay Americans to access marriage law.

And the 14th Amendment protects not only classes of persons based on race, but also sexual orientation.

That can be found here in the Constitution:

Romer Governor of Colorado et al. v. Evans et al. 517 U.S. 620 1996 .

And here:

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

 

[Silhouette]

The 14th amendment protects the rights of all Americans to equal treatment under the law. Marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults and therefore falls under the 14th amendment.

Brother and sisters? Why just two? Parent/child? In fact I can see a really good reason for parents to marry a child. So that there's no inheritance tax, it's a simple transfer of wealth.

Etc. Judge Sutton came up with all this.

Lifestyles and oddballs are not guaranteed any "rights" for priveleges. Should driving be a right to everyone? Yes, of age. But unfortunately blind people do not qualify for a license. Any institution that causes harm to others by a person who shouldn't qualify is a privelege, not a right. Blind people do not fit the physical-mechanics of driving.

Gay marriage harms children for at least two solid and indisputable reasons: 1. It guarantees any child in the home will be deprived of one of their blood parents 100% of the time and 2. It guarantees any child in the home that they will be missing the complimentary gender-as role model 100% of the time. Gay people do not meet the physical mechanics as blood parents.

Sterile heteros qualify because they meet the physical mechanics of who makes blood children together. And they don't deprive any children arriving to their home of the vital complimentary gender-as-role-model.

The states are only involved marriage for the sake of children.

We go round and round the block with this one derideo, but the thread is about the lower courts circumventing process when they forced the various states to allow gay marriage against their Will. So any of those court decisions are not worth the paper they're written on. Gay marriage is not and never has been valid or legal in those states therefore.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The 14th amendment protects the rights of all Americans to equal treatment under the law. Marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults and therefore falls under the 14th amendment.

Brother and sisters? Why just two? Parent/child? In fact I can see a really good reason for parents to marry a child. So that there's no inheritance tax, it's a simple transfer of wealth.

Etc. Judge Sutton came up with all this.

Lifestyles and oddballs are not guaranteed any "rights" for priveleges. Should driving be a right to everyone? Yes, of age. But unfortunately blind people do not qualify for a license. Any institution that causes harm to others by a person who shouldn't qualify is a privelege, not a right. Blind people do not fit the physical-mechanics of driving.

Gay marriage harms children for at least two solid and indisputable reasons: 1. It guarantees any child in the home will be deprived of one of their blood parents 100% of the time and 2. It guarantees any child in the home that they will be missing the complimentary gender-as role model 100% of the time. Gay people do not meet the physical mechanics as blood parents.

Sterile heteros qualify because they meet the physical mechanics of who makes blood children together. And they don't deprive any children arriving to their home of the vital complimentary gender-as-role-model.

The states are only involved marriage for the sake of children.

We go round and round the block with this one derideo, but the thread is about the lower courts circumventing process when they forced the various states to allow gay marriage against their Will. So any of those court decisions are not worth the paper they're written on. Gay marriage is not and never has been valid or legal in those states therefore.

Your desperation is on display. You are forced into proposing ludicrous scenarios because you have no legitimate basis for denying gay Americans their right to equality under the law.

 

[Silhouette]

Your desperation is on display. You are forced into proposing ludicrous scenarios because you have no legitimate basis for denying gay Americans their right to equality under the law.

This isn't ludicrous. Check the link in the OP. Sutton said plainly and clearly that other lower court judges are in violation of procedure. They do not enjoy the privelege of unilaterally rewriting the rules of the federal court system. And neither does the singular Justice Sotomayor.

Since their decisions were arrived at outside American law, their judgments are not American law. It really doesn't get any simpler than that.

Let me illustrate if for you a bit more in terms you like...the bitch of procedure that you waved around as a victory. Remember when the 9th circuit and SCOTUS denied the Prop 8 defenders not because they didn't have a case, but because "they didn't have standing"? That was a procedural ruling. So the Court feels very strongly about procedures and following proper protocol. They cannot play favorites in this regard.

Any AG who wants to defend his state's voters rights has a burly case. In fact he doesn't have to. Any state right now could just play chicken with a lower court ruling so found outside procedure and the burden would be upon the federal system to prove why that state must abide by a ruling that is procedurally-illegal.

 

[Silhouette]

One tiny little procedural flaw in Prop 8 defenders and it was "GAME OVER". One COLLOSAL procedural flaw (sedition actually) in the lower circuits in FAVOR of the LGBT cult and suddenly it's "no big deal...just a technicality...we'll let it slide.....look the other way.."

Kinda smells like tyranny to me.

 

[Silhouette]

According to homophobic Silhouette states must have the right to ban all divorces since that will "deprive children 100% of the time of one of their blood parents"....In fact States must have the right to genetically test all parents and children and ensure that they are only in the custody of their "blood parents" even if they are not married to one another but instead to other people.

Typical left wing stupidity and hypocrisy. Trying to justify a guaranteed bad thing by virtue of another potentially bad thing.

I said none of that Derideo. The state has a vested interest in marriage only to the extent of how the married home affects the children in it. The state has found that children that have both blood parents in the home fare better than other children. It's the reason marriage benefits aren't extended to single parents, for example, even though as the LGBT cult argument goes "children are suffering from lack of marital benefits." The state has said to those kids, numbering in the 10s of millions instead of thousands, "sorry, no benefits for you".

When blood parents get divorced the state allows it since the environment for the children is paramount. Perfection is never achieved, only strived for in the state-incentive program for kids called "marriage". So if the environment is too toxic the lesser of two evils prevails and the state reluctantly allows for divorce. Those split parents could possibly manange to remarry and create a better environment that still doesn't lack one of the vital opposite genders-as-role-models for the kids. It is for this reason sterile hetero couples are allowed to marry. They don't mar that vital element and they don't tarnish the brass ring of male/female....the only combo that can procreate blood children..

But all that aside, don't forget this thread is about the other circuit courts illegally circumventing procedure in the federal appelate system. None of their decisions that override either BAker 1971 or Windsor 2013 are viable as laws or compelling judgments. If I were a state AG, I'd order all my county clerks to stand their ground and play chicken with the fed. Force the fed to define how overruling from underneath is an excusable procedural blunder....while reserving the right to use some ?? technicality in procedure to deny the defenders of Prop 8 at the 2013 SCOTUS hearing...

 

[Derideo_Te]

According to homophobic Silhouette states must have the right to ban all divorces since that will "deprive children 100% of the time of one of their blood parents"....In fact States must have the right to genetically test all parents and children and ensure that they are only in the custody of their "blood parents" even if they are not married to one another but instead to other people.

Typical left wing stupidity and hypocrisy. Trying to justify a guaranteed bad thing by virtue of another potentially bad thing.

I said none of that Derideo. The state has a vested interest in marriage only to the extent of how the married home affects the children in it. The state has found that children that have both blood parents in the home fare better than other children. It's the reason marriage benefits aren't extended to single parents, for example, even though as the LGBT cult argument goes "children are suffering from lack of marital benefits." The state has said to those kids, numbering in the 10s of millions instead of thousands, "sorry, no benefits for you".

When blood parents get divorced the state allows it since the environment for the children is paramount. Perfection is never achieved, only strived for in the state-incentive program for kids called "marriage". So if the environment is too toxic the lesser of two evils prevails and the state reluctantly allows for divorce. Those split parents could possibly manange to remarry and create a better environment that still doesn't lack one of the vital opposite genders-as-role-models for the kids. It is for this reason sterile hetero couples are allowed to marry. They don't mar that vital element and they don't tarnish the brass ring of male/female....the only combo that can procreate blood children..

But all that aside, don't forget this thread is about the other circuit courts illegally circumventing procedure in the federal appelate system. None of their decisions that override either BAker 1971 or Windsor 2013 are viable as laws or compelling judgments. If I were a state AG, I'd order all my county clerks to stand their ground and play chicken with the fed. Force the fed to define how overruling from underneath is an excusable procedural blunder....while reserving the right to use some ?? technicality in procedure to deny the defenders of Prop 8 at the 2013 SCOTUS hearing...

You have no compelling argument to deny gay Americans their 14th Amendment rights.

This "think of the children" emotive plea is about as desperate and shallow as it gets. In essence you are alleging that gays are "inferior parents" with zero substantiation for that claim. Furthermore you are corrupting the results of that study. Kids do better in a 2 parent household than a single parent household, period. The genders and relationships are utterly irrelevant. Children can be raised by a father and grandmother, a mother and her maiden aunt, an unmarried couple, a pair of divorced fathers, the combination doesn't matter at all. What matters is that two parents are better than one therefore gay marriage is better than single parenthood.

Grow up and deal with reality for a change.

 

[Silhouette]

You have no compelling argument to deny gay Americans their 14th Amendment rights.

This "think of the children" emotive plea is about as desperate and shallow as it gets. In essence you are alleging that gays are "inferior parents" with zero substantiation for that claim. Furthermore you are corrupting the results of that study. Kids do better in a 2 parent household than a single parent household, period. The genders and relationships are utterly irrelevant. Children can be raised by a father and grandmother, a mother and her maiden aunt, an unmarried couple, a pair of divorced fathers, the combination doesn't matter at all. What matters is that two parents are better than one therefore gay marriage is better than single parenthood,

Children do better with both blood parents in the home.

Tell you what, get your buddies over at the APA to cook up some "data" that supports your stance and then get back to us here. Get the APA to say, in publication, that children would do just as well in homes without both blood parents as with, post the link here and I'll check it out. OK?

Then I'll submit that data to the new Congress in January so they can better review the APA's funding. They can have an independent research group or groups compare results with the APA's "new findings" and see if they cut the muster. Until that point, we will rely on the old and true science in default to the best security of children and say that we know for a FACT that children do better in married homes with both blood parents. We will err on the side of caution when children are involved and not on "experimentation".

 

[Silhouette]

You have no compelling argument to deny gay Americans their 14th Amendment rights.

This "think of the children" emotive plea is about as desperate and shallow as it gets. In essence you are alleging that gays are "inferior parents" with zero substantiation for that claim..

Let's be accurate here, a lack of studies does not a conclusion make. You're insisting that we experiment with children like guinea pigs in favor of gay couples playing at "mom and dad". "See how it plays out over time". Two words apply here: "Thomas Lobel". His affliction is less "gender identity disorder" than it is "my gender doesn't matter disorder"....in a home where only female adults are present as playing at "mom and dad".

The facts that we already have in preponderence are that children fare the best in their formative years in homes where both blood parents are present, or where the complimentary genders are present as the only people that can be mom and dad to kids; male and female respectively.

It's sure funny how the very hinge LGBTs argued succesfully to get circuit court judges to circumvent procedure to attempt to overrule Baker and Windsor from underneath was "think of how this is hurting the kids of gays". And now you're conveniently switching that concerns for children in this debate is "a desperate emotive plea"..

So for those that are keeping up:

1. If procedural flaws are present in those petitioning to preserve voters' rights, like Prop 8 on the side of male/female only marriage, that petition must be summarly dismissed.

2. If procedural flaws are present in those petitioning to override the will of the majority on behalf of the cult of LGBT, then hey, just give a pass, nothing to notice...move on...

1. It's perfectly fine to play the heartstrings of judges in the federal appeals system saying NOT to have gay marriage "will hurt children"...somehow..even though statistically their gay adults have be shacking up for years anyway.

2. It's NOT perfectly fine though to note that a state's interest in marriage is solely to insure that the children in that home have both blood parents present or complementary genders present as mother/father role models.

This is a fascist cult with people in high places willing to bend the law to the breaking point to favor an untried agenda with respect to the wellbeing of children into the unforeseeable future..

 

[Silhouette]

Sutton's discourse on the illegality of lower courts trying to overrule SCOTUS from underneath, or play gypsie fortune tellers on "how they believe SCOTUS will change its mind anyway so it's cool to break the rules"...

**********

And now, claimants insist, must account for United States v. Windsor , 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), which invalidated the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, a law that refused for purposes of federal statutory benefits to respect gay marriages authorized by state law. Yet Windsor
does not answer today’s question. The decision never mentions Baker , much less overrules it. And the outcomes of the cases do not clash.
Windsor invalidated a federal law that refused to respect state laws permitting gay marriage, while Baker upheld the right of the people of a State to define marriage as they see it. To respect one decision does not slight the other. Nor does Windsor's reasoning clash with Baker. Windsor
hinges on the Defense of Marriage Act’s unprecedented intrusion into the States’ authority over domestic relations. Id.at 2691–92. Before the Act’s passage in 1996, the federal government had traditionally relied on state definitions of marriage instead of purporting to define marriage itself.
Id.at 2691.
That premise does not work—it runs the other way—in a case involving a challenge in federal court to state laws defining marriage. The point of
Windsor was to prevent the Federal Government from “divest[ing]” gay couples of “a dignity and status of immense import” that New York’s extension of the definition of marriage gave them, an extension that “without doubt” any State could provide... Windsor made explicit that it does not answer today’s question, telling us that the “opinion and its holding are confined to . . . lawful marriages” already protected by some of the States. Id. at 2696. Bringing the matter to a close, the Court held minutes after releasing Windsor that procedural obstacles in Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652 (2013), prevented it from considering the validity of state marriage laws. Saying that the Court declined in Hollingsworth to overrule Baker openly but decided in Windsor to overrule it by stealth makes an unflattering and unfair estimate of the Justices’ candor.

Even if Windsor did not overrule Baker by name,the claimants point out, lower courts still may rely on “doctrinal developments” in the aftermath of a summary disposition as a ground for not following the decision. Hicks,422 U.S. at 344. And Windsor , they say, together with Lawrence v. Texas
, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), and Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), permit us to cast Baker aside. But this reading of “doctrinal developments” would be a groundbreaking development of its own. From the perspective of a lower court, summary dispositions remain “controlling precedent, unless and until re-examined by [the Supreme] Court.” Tully v. Griffin, Inc., 429 U.S. 68, 74 (1976); see Hicks, 422 U.S. at 343–45. And the Court has told us to treat the two types of decisions, whether summary dispositions or full-merits decisions, the same, “prevent[ing] lower courts” in both settings “from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues presented and necessarily decided by those actions.” Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977). Lest doubt remain, the Court has also told us not to ignore its decisions even when they are in tension with a new line of cases. “If a precedent of this Court has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the Court of Appeals should follow the case which directly controls, leaving to this Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.” Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/Am. Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 484 (1989); see Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 237 (1997).

Just two scenarios, then, permit us to ignore a Supreme Court decision, whatever its form: when the Court has overruled the decision by name (if, say, Windsor had directly overruled Baker ) or when the Court has overruled the decision by outcome (if, say, Hollingsworth had invalidated the California law without mentioning Baker ). Any other approach returns us to a world in which the lower courts may anticipatorily overrule all manner of Supreme Court decisions based on counting-to-five predictions, perceived trajectories in the caselaw, or, worst of all, new appointments to the Court. In the end, neither of the two preconditions for ignoring Supreme Court precedent applies here. Windsor as shown does not mention
Baker , and it clarifies that its “opinion and holding” do not govern the States’ authority to define marriage. Hollingsworth was dismissed. And neither Lawrence nor Romer mentions Baker ,and neither is inconsistent with its outcome. The one invalidates a State’s criminal antisodomy
law and explains that the case “does not involve . . . formal recognition” of same-sex relationships. Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 578....

...don’t these denials of certiorari signal that, from the Court’s perspective, the right to same-sex marriage is inevitable? Maybe; maybe not. Even if we grant the premise and assume that same-sex marriage will be recognized one day in all fifty States, that does not tell us how— whether through the courts or through democracy. And, if through the courts, that does not tell us why—whether through one theory of constitutional invalidity or another. Four courts of appeals thus far have recognized a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. They agree on one thing: the result. But they reach that outcome in many ways, often more than one way in the same decision...The Court’s certiorari denials tell us nothing about the democracy-versus-litigation path to same-sex marriage, and they tell us nothing about the validity of any of these theories. If a federal court denies the people suffrage over an issue long thought to be within their power, they deserve an explanation. We, for our part, cannot find one, as several other judges have concluded as well....

...There are many ways, as these lower court decisions confirm, to look at this question: originalism; rational basis review; animus; fundamental rights; suspect classifications; evolving meaning. The parties in one way or another have invoked them all. Not one of the plaintiffs’ theories, however, makes the case for constitutionalizing the definition of marriage and for removing the issue from the place it has been since the founding: in the hands of state voters.

*************

 

[Silhouette]

Your entire premise is based upon an irrational fear of gays and the 14th Amendment will ensure that there is nothing you can do about preventing gays from their right to be treated equally under the law.

The trick is that you need to delineate in law how my premise is allegedly "based upon an irrational fear of gays". If my premise is based on a rational fear for children in the future being in homes incentivized by the state to be missing one of their blood parents, guaranteed 100% of the time, or missing the complimentary gender-as-role-model 100% of the time, then you've run into a snag.

ie: you'll need to put into writing, with specific points and citations of authorities, just how my points about children missing one blood parent and/or one complimentary gender role model in the home 100% of the time in 'gay marriage' is somehow 'invalid'..

 

[bodecea]

"Should states being illegally-forced to accept gay marriages fire their AGs for inaction?"

This fails as a loaded question fallacy.

States do not have the authority to deny citizens their civil rights. When the courts invalidate laws repugnant to the Constitution, the fault lies solely with the states and their officers who should have never enforced such laws that are clearly un-Constitutional to begin with.

The states and their officers are subject to the Constitution, its case law, and the rulings of Federal courts, where state attorneys general are compelled to obey the decisions of Federal courts in accordance with Article VI of the Federal Constitution.

The voters voted to recognize marriage between man and woman in California but the 9th circus of idiots decided that didn't matter. The voters constitutional rights were overrun by a bunch of leftist retards.

Wrong....and this is not the first time that Propositions in CA have been clearly unConstitutional and shot down in the federal courts.