Justice Kennedy Halts "Gay Marriage" in Idaho & Nevada

[Skylar]

State power many not limit civil liberties as defined by SCOTUS review.

States have not had that power since 1868, although the national government permitted them to do so wrongfully.

There is no federal protection in the US constitution for driving or gay marriage. They are both state-regulated priveleges.

Actually. Marriage is recognized as a right. THe 9th amendment makes clear that there are reserve rights that are unenumerated. And the 14th ammendment permits the federal government to protect them. Congress cannnot overwrite State laws on marriage. But State laws on marriage cannot abrogate the rights of individuals. As Loving made stupidly clear.

Windsor only addresses Congressional power to overwrite State marriage laws. And they lack that authority. It says nothing of the federal government's authority to protect the rights of individuals that are violated by unconstitutional marriage laws. Nor did the Windsor decision need to. Loving already answered that question.

Hell yes they can.

If you are telling the truth about gay marriage being so popular these days, just put new measures on the states' ballots and be done with it.

Rights aren't subject to a vote. They can't be abrogated because the majority doesn't like them. And marriage is a right. Not a privilege.

 

[dcraelin]

You do have to wonder if justice Kennedy isn't getting a little irritated by all these appeals court justices misinterpreting the Windsor decision. Which, as I understand it, basically said the states define marriage so the Federal government shouldn't. And then on top of that they are jumping the gun on judicial procedures.

The SCOTUS in Windsor specifically said the States power to enact Civil Marriage laws was limited by Federal Constitutional guarantees, that Windsor did not address whether States could say "No" to SSCM only that if a State says "Yes" that the Federal government had to recognize it.
That was confirmed in Chief Justice Roberts dissenting opinion.>>>>

I dont think u r correct in that.....especially not regarding Roberts opinion. As a generic statement everything is subject to Constitutional guarantees.

If the Windsor case was so clear cut, why didnt the SC just go ahead and legalize gay marriage at the time?.....

From the opinion of the court, showing that State marriage laws are still limited by the Constitutional guarentees:

"In order to assess the validity of that intervention it is necessary to discuss the extent of the state power and au-thority over marriage as a matter of history and tradition. State laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); but, subject to those guarantees, “regulation of domestic relations” is“an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.”

<<SNIP>>

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

<<SNIP>>

"The States’ interest in defining and regulating the marital relation, subject to constitutional guarantees, stems from the understanding that marriage is more than a routine classification for purposes of certain statutory benefits. Private, consensual sexual intimacy between two adult persons of the same sex may not be punished by the State, and it can form “but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558, 567 (2003)."​

From the opinion of the court, showing that the Windsor decision was limited to lawful marriages entered into under State law (i.e. it was about States that said "Yes"):

By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others,the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment. This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages.​

From the dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Roberts, showing that the Windsor did not answer the question of whether States could Constitutionally discriminate against same-sex couples in the realm of Civil Marriage.:

"But while I disagree with the result to which the majority’s analysis leads it in this case, I think it more important to point out that its analysis leads no further. The Court does not have before it, and the logic of its opinion does not decide, the distinct question whether the States, in the exercise of their “historic and essential authority to define the marital relation,” ante, at 18, may continue to utilize the traditional definition of marriage.​

>>>>

And you think this proves your point?????

quoting Roberts " The Court does not have before it, and the logic of its opinion does not decide, the distinct question whether the States, in the exercise of their “historic and essential authority to define the marital relation,” ante, at 18, may continue to utilize the traditional definition of marriage."

What about that would indicate to any appeals court judge that any State's ban on gay-marriage was unconstitutional?.........not a damn thing.

I didn't say that Windsor was a ruling on whether states could say "yes" or "no", as a matter of fact I clearly said that in the majority decision and in Chief Justice Roberts dissent that that question was not answer.
However the LOGIC used in the majority opinion clearly showed that capricious and invidioius laws which were created for no other purpose then to be discriminatory against an unpopular group does not stand against consitutional review.
It was that logic the lower courts used. Logic the SCOTUS choose not to refute and to allow to stand.
>>>>

That makes no sense......if they had used that argument .....then why didnt they just go ahead and make restrictions against gay-marriage unconstitutional, If not in that case then in the parallel one they ruled on in the same session, prop 8....

The lower federal court judges are pulling their rulings out of thin air.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The SCOTUS in Windsor specifically said the States power to enact Civil Marriage laws was limited by Federal Constitutional guarantees, that Windsor did not address whether States could say "No" to SSCM only that if a State says "Yes" that the Federal government had to recognize it.
That was confirmed in Chief Justice Roberts dissenting opinion.>>>>

I dont think u r correct in that.....especially not regarding Roberts opinion. As a generic statement everything is subject to Constitutional guarantees.

If the Windsor case was so clear cut, why didnt the SC just go ahead and legalize gay marriage at the time?.....

From the opinion of the court, showing that State marriage laws are still limited by the Constitutional guarentees:

"In order to assess the validity of that intervention it is necessary to discuss the extent of the state power and au-thority over marriage as a matter of history and tradition. State laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); but, subject to those guarantees, “regulation of domestic relations” is“an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.”

<<SNIP>>

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

<<SNIP>>

"The States’ interest in defining and regulating the marital relation, subject to constitutional guarantees, stems from the understanding that marriage is more than a routine classification for purposes of certain statutory benefits. Private, consensual sexual intimacy between two adult persons of the same sex may not be punished by the State, and it can form “but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558, 567 (2003)."​

From the opinion of the court, showing that the Windsor decision was limited to lawful marriages entered into under State law (i.e. it was about States that said "Yes"):

By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others,the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment. This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages.​

From the dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Roberts, showing that the Windsor did not answer the question of whether States could Constitutionally discriminate against same-sex couples in the realm of Civil Marriage.:

"But while I disagree with the result to which the majority’s analysis leads it in this case, I think it more important to point out that its analysis leads no further. The Court does not have before it, and the logic of its opinion does not decide, the distinct question whether the States, in the exercise of their “historic and essential authority to define the marital relation,” ante, at 18, may continue to utilize the traditional definition of marriage.​

>>>>

And you think this proves your point?????

quoting Roberts " The Court does not have before it, and the logic of its opinion does not decide, the distinct question whether the States, in the exercise of their “historic and essential authority to define the marital relation,” ante, at 18, may continue to utilize the traditional definition of marriage."

What about that would indicate to any appeals court judge that any State's ban on gay-marriage was unconstitutional?.........not a damn thing.

I didn't say that Windsor was a ruling on whether states could say "yes" or "no", as a matter of fact I clearly said that in the majority decision and in Chief Justice Roberts dissent that that question was not answer.
However the LOGIC used in the majority opinion clearly showed that capricious and invidioius laws which were created for no other purpose then to be discriminatory against an unpopular group does not stand against consitutional review.
It was that logic the lower courts used. Logic the SCOTUS choose not to refute and to allow to stand.
>>>>

That makes no sense......if they had used that argument .....then why didnt they just go ahead and make restrictions against gay-marriage unconstitutional, If not in that case then in the parallel one they ruled on in the same session, prop 8....

The lower federal court judges are pulling their rulings out of thin air.

You would have to ask the SCOTUS, they have not shared that information with the public.

Personally I think they "punted" on Prop 8 also. But they did so in a manner consistent with prior rulings on standing. Since there were no State actors that had standing that appealed, the case was dismissed (actually ruled on based on standing) without addressing the core question.


>>>>

 

[JakeStarkey]

SCOTUS is allowing the lower courts to define and decide the pertinent issues.

 

[Skylar]

SCOTUS is allowing the lower courts to define and decide the pertinent issues.

That. What he said.

 

[Silhouette]

SCOTUS is allowing the lower courts to define and decide the pertinent issues.

Except the 9th with regards to Idaho. Kennedy effectively overruled that decision.

One is left wondering why?....

 

[WorldWatcher]

SCOTUS is allowing the lower courts to define and decide the pertinent issues.

Except the 9th with regards to Idaho. Kennedy effectively overruled that decision.

One is left wondering why?....

Sigh...

Someday you will understand that a "stay" is not "overruling that decision" it is simply a hold on future action until legal matters can be sorted out. Kennedy issued the stay for the same reason they issued the stays in the other cases while briefs were obtained. Idaho requested a stay and got a temporary one while briefs were filed.

The court got the briefs and then decided what to do...

....................... The stay in Idaho has been lifted.


http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Idaho-marriage-SCt-stay-denial-10-10-14.pdf


>>>>

 

[Skylar]

SCOTUS is allowing the lower courts to define and decide the pertinent issues.

Except the 9th with regards to Idaho. Kennedy effectively overruled that decision.

One is left wondering why?....

No he didn't. Remember, you know jack shit about the law. And that's almost always an encumbrance when it comes to your legal analysis.

Stays don't overrule anything. They're just temporary delays. Remember when you said the *exact* same thing about the stay Utah was granted? That it effectively overruled the lower court decision? How'd that work out again?

Ah, now I remember! The SCOTUS eventually refused cert and all the lower court rulings became authoritative. Demonstrating in a single stroke that you have no idea what you're talking about....and a stay doesn't overrule a thing. It only delays it until later.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Stays are merely "not now" rulings and withdrawal of stays are "now" rulings.

 

[Silhouette]

Stays are merely "not now" rulings and withdrawal of stays are "now" rulings.

Stays are an indication that the Court is considering the merits of the person requesting the stay.

How many polygamists are applying to be married now that a dozen or more states have no marriage laws at all on their books and *Anyone* can storm the clerks offices and demand a marriage license?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Tell us how many, then.

You are our Alan Keys, having surpassed Yurt as mouth of the Board.