Kentucky Gubernatorial win is big win for Kim Davis

[ThoughtCrimes]

The fed is marriage now. States no longer have a say. If they can't determine at minimum requirements a mother and father, then they're out of the game completely.

Says who?

You may want to read the Windsor v. US decision. Subject to constitutional guarantees, the State defines marriage.

First off, the case would be United States v. Windsor. Secondly, SCOTUS found DOMA unconstitutional and violative of the Equal Protection Clause of Amendment V.

Your citation is irrelevant to what is being discussed. We're talking about who defines marriage, the State or the Federal government. The Windsor ruling was ridiculously clear that it was the States:

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see , e.g., Loving v. Virginia , 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa , 419 U. S. 393, 404.

Windsor v. US

With the courts making it just as clear that what the meant by 'regulation of domestic relations', was marriage.

The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States,” Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U. S. 379, 383–384.

Windsor v. US

Demonstrating that your comments are gloriously irrelevant to what we're discussing. And of course, that I was obviously correct.

Following US v. Windsor, SCOTUS found bans on same sex marriage unconstitutional in all States violative of the
Says who?

You may want to read the Windsor v. US decision. Subject to constitutional guarantees, the State defines marriage.

Your claim is in error.

You're confused. We're not speaking of the basis of the Windsor ruling. We're speaking of the Windsor ruling's recognition that the States regulate marriage. Not the Federal government.

None of which your comments have the slightest relevance to. Your mistake would be akin to replying that I'm wrong that the Toyota Camry comes in white because it has a 4 cylinder engine.

The two really have nothing to do with each other. Nor does one disprove the other. Much like your babble about the equal protection clause has nothing to do with whether it is the state or the federal government that defines and regulates marriage.

Your post #41 to which I responded:
"Says who?

You may want to read the Windsor v. US decision. Subject to constitutional guarantees, the State defines marriage."

What you wrote revolved around your declarative implication that US v. Windsor returned full power to define marriage to the States by striking down DOMA. I fully understood that, but noted your error in that your declaration had been UNDERMINED by Obergefell v. Hodges decided just last June!

You clearly didn't 'fully understand'. As your entire argument collapses upon an even causal reading of my 3 sentence post. I'll bold where your argument shatters:

"Says who?

You may want to read the Windsor v. US decision. Subject to constitutional guarantees, the State defines marriage."

You completely ignored that section, pretending it didn't exist. Despite it being the axis around which Obergefell turned.

The Obergefell ruling NEVER found that the regulation of marriage was the arena of the federal government. Or overturned any of their findings in Windsor. Instead, the Obegefell Court found that the laws prohibiting marriage for same sex couples violated the due process and equal protection clauses.

You've mistaken a violation of constitutional guarantees with the Courts finding that marriage is defined by the Federal government. They aren't the same thing.

Your inability to discern the difference is why you were wrong. And I'm still right. As subject to constitutional guarantees, the State do define marriage.

Says who?

Says the Windsor Court itself:

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see , e.g., Loving v. Virginia , 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa , 419 U. S. 393, 404.

Windsor v. US

With the courts making it just as clear that what the meant by 'regulation of domestic relations', was marriage.

The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States,” Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U. S. 379, 383–384.

Windsor v. US

You simply didn't know what you were talking about. And I did. Remember that. Its likely to be a pattern in our discussions.

I laid out the legal path from Windsor leading to Obergefell to show that SCOTUS had banned the several States from any obstruction of same sex marriage because it was violative of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of Amendment XIV.

You laid out a legal path that's gloriously irrelevant to what we're discussing: who defines marriage, the State or the Federal Government.

Subject to constitutional guarantees, the States define marriage. Exactly as the Windsor ruling said clearly and unquestioningly. And the Obergefell ruling never overturns. Your continuing confusion on this point is obvious.

"Says who?

You may want to read the Windsor v. US decision. Subject to constitutional guarantees, the State defines marriage."

Followed by:

You completely ignored that section, pretending it didn't exist. Despite it being the axis around which Obergefell turned.

SCOTUS is empowered to REDEFINE a State's definition of marriage to be in accord with constitutional guaranties, as they did in Obergefell, by telling the States with laws defining marriage to be ONLY between one man and one woman and forced those States with that definition to change that same definition. Who has the final word in the definition of marriage across the land? The several States are not empowered to make the final call on their definition of marriage.

See the definition of define and apply same to State and SCOTUS! Can we agree that words have meaning and shades of meaning, also?

However, I do take your point given the way you have explained your intent re: your initial assertion, and hopefully you now see my position in understanding what you wrote. My immediate assumption that you were another Amendment X wing nut was active having dealt with two of them recently.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That doesn't change the USSC decision.

Correct.

Governors, county clerks, and all state officers remain subject to Supreme Court rulings and Constitutional case law.

 

[Skylar]

Says who?

You may want to read the Windsor v. US decision. Subject to constitutional guarantees, the State defines marriage.

First off, the case would be United States v. Windsor. Secondly, SCOTUS found DOMA unconstitutional and violative of the Equal Protection Clause of Amendment V.

Your citation is irrelevant to what is being discussed. We're talking about who defines marriage, the State or the Federal government. The Windsor ruling was ridiculously clear that it was the States:

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see , e.g., Loving v. Virginia , 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa , 419 U. S. 393, 404.

Windsor v. US

With the courts making it just as clear that what the meant by 'regulation of domestic relations', was marriage.

The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States,” Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U. S. 379, 383–384.

Windsor v. US

Demonstrating that your comments are gloriously irrelevant to what we're discussing. And of course, that I was obviously correct.

Following US v. Windsor, SCOTUS found bans on same sex marriage unconstitutional in all States violative of the
Says who?

You may want to read the Windsor v. US decision. Subject to constitutional guarantees, the State defines marriage.

Your claim is in error.

You're confused. We're not speaking of the basis of the Windsor ruling. We're speaking of the Windsor ruling's recognition that the States regulate marriage. Not the Federal government.

None of which your comments have the slightest relevance to. Your mistake would be akin to replying that I'm wrong that the Toyota Camry comes in white because it has a 4 cylinder engine.

The two really have nothing to do with each other. Nor does one disprove the other. Much like your babble about the equal protection clause has nothing to do with whether it is the state or the federal government that defines and regulates marriage.

Your post #41 to which I responded:
"Says who?

You may want to read the Windsor v. US decision. Subject to constitutional guarantees, the State defines marriage."

What you wrote revolved around your declarative implication that US v. Windsor returned full power to define marriage to the States by striking down DOMA. I fully understood that, but noted your error in that your declaration had been UNDERMINED by Obergefell v. Hodges decided just last June!

You clearly didn't 'fully understand'. As your entire argument collapses upon an even causal reading of my 3 sentence post. I'll bold where your argument shatters:

"Says who?

You may want to read the Windsor v. US decision. Subject to constitutional guarantees, the State defines marriage."

You completely ignored that section, pretending it didn't exist. Despite it being the axis around which Obergefell turned.

The Obergefell ruling NEVER found that the regulation of marriage was the arena of the federal government. Or overturned any of their findings in Windsor. Instead, the Obegefell Court found that the laws prohibiting marriage for same sex couples violated the due process and equal protection clauses.

You've mistaken a violation of constitutional guarantees with the Courts finding that marriage is defined by the Federal government. They aren't the same thing.

Your inability to discern the difference is why you were wrong. And I'm still right. As subject to constitutional guarantees, the State do define marriage.

Says who?

Says the Windsor Court itself:

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see , e.g., Loving v. Virginia , 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa , 419 U. S. 393, 404.

Windsor v. US

With the courts making it just as clear that what the meant by 'regulation of domestic relations', was marriage.

The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States,” Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U. S. 379, 383–384.

Windsor v. US

You simply didn't know what you were talking about. And I did. Remember that. Its likely to be a pattern in our discussions.

I laid out the legal path from Windsor leading to Obergefell to show that SCOTUS had banned the several States from any obstruction of same sex marriage because it was violative of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of Amendment XIV.

You laid out a legal path that's gloriously irrelevant to what we're discussing: who defines marriage, the State or the Federal Government.

Subject to constitutional guarantees, the States define marriage. Exactly as the Windsor ruling said clearly and unquestioningly. And the Obergefell ruling never overturns. Your continuing confusion on this point is obvious.

"Says who?

You may want to read the Windsor v. US decision. Subject to constitutional guarantees, the State defines marriage."

Followed by:

You completely ignored that section, pretending it didn't exist. Despite it being the axis around which Obergefell turned.

SCOTUS is empowered to REDEFINE a State's definition of marriage to be in accord with constitutional guaranties, as they did in Obergefell, by telling the States with laws defining marriage to be ONLY between one man and one woman and forced those States with that definition to change that same definition. Who has the final word in the definition of marriage across the land? The several States are not empowered to make the final call on their definition of marriage.

Again, you've mistaken a violation of constitutional guarantees with the Courts finding that marriage is defined by the Federal government.

They aren't the same thing. The basis of the Obergefell ruling wasn't that the regulation and definition of marriage belonged to the Federal government and not the State. Instead the court found that state marriage laws violated constitutional guarantees, by your own admission. Contrary to your claims the USSC has found that subject to constitutional guarantees the States define and regulate marriage.

Its not me you're arguing with. Its the Supreme Court themselves:

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see , e.g., Loving v. Virginia , 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa."

Windsor v. US

With the courts making it just as clear that what the meant by 'regulation of domestic relations', was marriage.

"The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States,” Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agle."

Windsor v. US

You blundered, completely missing any mention of 'subject to constitutional guarantees' in my post, despite the post only being 3 sentences long. Which was just an epic fuck up. And now you blunder, ignoring the Supreme Court itself on this very issue, insisting that you know better.

Alas, you don't.

The Windsor court explicitly contradicted you and affirmed my position. While the Obergefell court never overturned any portion of the Windsor ruling. Ignore the Supreme Court as you wish. It doesn't change the basis of the Windsor or Obergefell rulings. Or the caselaw that found that subject to constitutional guarantees, the definition of marriage was up to the State.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

First off, the case would be United States v. Windsor. Secondly, SCOTUS found DOMA unconstitutional and violative of the Equal Protection Clause of Amendment V.

Your citation is irrelevant to what is being discussed. We're talking about who defines marriage, the State or the Federal government. The Windsor ruling was ridiculously clear that it was the States:

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see , e.g., Loving v. Virginia , 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa , 419 U. S. 393, 404.

Windsor v. US

With the courts making it just as clear that what the meant by 'regulation of domestic relations', was marriage.

The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States,” Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U. S. 379, 383–384.

Windsor v. US

Demonstrating that your comments are gloriously irrelevant to what we're discussing. And of course, that I was obviously correct.

Following US v. Windsor, SCOTUS found bans on same sex marriage unconstitutional in all States violative of the
Says who?

You may want to read the Windsor v. US decision. Subject to constitutional guarantees, the State defines marriage.

Your claim is in error.

You're confused. We're not speaking of the basis of the Windsor ruling. We're speaking of the Windsor ruling's recognition that the States regulate marriage. Not the Federal government.

None of which your comments have the slightest relevance to. Your mistake would be akin to replying that I'm wrong that the Toyota Camry comes in white because it has a 4 cylinder engine.

The two really have nothing to do with each other. Nor does one disprove the other. Much like your babble about the equal protection clause has nothing to do with whether it is the state or the federal government that defines and regulates marriage.

Your post #41 to which I responded:
"Says who?

You may want to read the Windsor v. US decision. Subject to constitutional guarantees, the State defines marriage."

What you wrote revolved around your declarative implication that US v. Windsor returned full power to define marriage to the States by striking down DOMA. I fully understood that, but noted your error in that your declaration had been UNDERMINED by Obergefell v. Hodges decided just last June!

You clearly didn't 'fully understand'. As your entire argument collapses upon an even causal reading of my 3 sentence post. I'll bold where your argument shatters:

"Says who?

You may want to read the Windsor v. US decision. Subject to constitutional guarantees, the State defines marriage."

You completely ignored that section, pretending it didn't exist. Despite it being the axis around which Obergefell turned.

The Obergefell ruling NEVER found that the regulation of marriage was the arena of the federal government. Or overturned any of their findings in Windsor. Instead, the Obegefell Court found that the laws prohibiting marriage for same sex couples violated the due process and equal protection clauses.

You've mistaken a violation of constitutional guarantees with the Courts finding that marriage is defined by the Federal government. They aren't the same thing.

Your inability to discern the difference is why you were wrong. And I'm still right. As subject to constitutional guarantees, the State do define marriage.

Says who?

Says the Windsor Court itself:

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see , e.g., Loving v. Virginia , 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa , 419 U. S. 393, 404.

Windsor v. US

With the courts making it just as clear that what the meant by 'regulation of domestic relations', was marriage.

The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States,” Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U. S. 379, 383–384.

Windsor v. US

You simply didn't know what you were talking about. And I did. Remember that. Its likely to be a pattern in our discussions.

I laid out the legal path from Windsor leading to Obergefell to show that SCOTUS had banned the several States from any obstruction of same sex marriage because it was violative of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of Amendment XIV.

You laid out a legal path that's gloriously irrelevant to what we're discussing: who defines marriage, the State or the Federal Government.

Subject to constitutional guarantees, the States define marriage. Exactly as the Windsor ruling said clearly and unquestioningly. And the Obergefell ruling never overturns. Your continuing confusion on this point is obvious.

"Says who?

You may want to read the Windsor v. US decision. Subject to constitutional guarantees, the State defines marriage."

Followed by:

You completely ignored that section, pretending it didn't exist. Despite it being the axis around which Obergefell turned.

SCOTUS is empowered to REDEFINE a State's definition of marriage to be in accord with constitutional guaranties, as they did in Obergefell, by telling the States with laws defining marriage to be ONLY between one man and one woman and forced those States with that definition to change that same definition. Who has the final word in the definition of marriage across the land? The several States are not empowered to make the final call on their definition of marriage.

Again, you've mistaken a violation of constitutional guarantees with the Courts finding that marriage is defined by the Federal government.

They aren't the same thing. The basis of the Obergefell ruling wasn't that the regulation and definition of marriage belonged to the Federal government and not the State. Instead the court found that state marriage laws violated constitutional guarantees, by your own admission. Contrary to your claims the USSC has found that subject to constitutional guarantees the States define and regulate marriage.

Its not me you're arguing with. Its the Supreme Court themselves:

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see , e.g., Loving v. Virginia , 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa."

Windsor v. US

With the courts making it just as clear that what the meant by 'regulation of domestic relations', was marriage.

"The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States,” Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agle."

Windsor v. US

You blundered, completely missing any mention of 'subject to constitutional guarantees' in my post, despite the post only being 3 sentences long. Which was just an epic fuck up. And now you blunder, ignoring the Supreme Court itself on this very issue, insisting that you know better.

Alas, you don't.

The Windsor court explicitly contradicted you and affirmed my position. While the Obergefell court never overturned any portion of the Windsor ruling. Ignore the Supreme Court as you wish. It doesn't change the basis of the Windsor or Obergefell rulings. Or the caselaw that found that subject to constitutional guarantees, the definition of marriage was up to the State.

Again, you've mistaken a violation of constitutional guarantees with the Courts finding that marriage is defined by the Federal government.

You are in error again.

The several States DO NOT have primacy under law to define and regulate marriage. That point was made clear in US v. Windsor given Justice Kennedy wrote the following in the decision:

"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. By history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage, as will be discussed in more detail, has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States. Yet it is further established that Congress, in enacting discrete statutes, can make determinations that bear on marital rights and privileges." [Emphasis Added]

"History and tradition" do not establish primacy under the law! That is borne out by the facts of the case itself. DOMA was another definition of marriage which applied to all States; those States permitting and those States forbidding same sex marriage. Did the Court rule that Amendment X was in any wise involved in the decision regarding primacy or did it rule that DOMA was violative of Amendment XIV?

Section 3 of P. L. 104-199 §3(a), DOMA, codified at 1 US §7 REDEFINED marriage. SCOTUS did not find that violative of Amendment X. How did that happen if the States have primacy? The answer is that the States do not. "By history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage...has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States." (Ibid) In other words BY CUSTOM not law! So much for your claim "the State defines marriage" in post #41 to which I initially responded in #43.

Further, the Supremes performed judicial review of the case. Again, in my initial response I noted that SCOTUS had ruled DOMA unconstitutional in all States violating the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of Amendment XIV. How is it that you couldn't connect that to 'subject to constitutional guarantees'. The finding SCREAMED a violation of judicial review and constitutional guarantees! It has not been me who is thick as a brick!

Now if you can prove that the Federal has no power in the defining or the regulation of marriage, AND the several States have that power EXCLUSIVELY, make the argument showing that Justice Kennedy got it wrong in Windsor!

 

[Skylar]

Your citation is irrelevant to what is being discussed. We're talking about who defines marriage, the State or the Federal government. The Windsor ruling was ridiculously clear that it was the States:

With the courts making it just as clear that what the meant by 'regulation of domestic relations', was marriage.

Demonstrating that your comments are gloriously irrelevant to what we're discussing. And of course, that I was obviously correct.

You're confused. We're not speaking of the basis of the Windsor ruling. We're speaking of the Windsor ruling's recognition that the States regulate marriage. Not the Federal government.

Again, you simply don't know what you're talking about. One of the many findings of the Windsor ruling found that the State's supremecy over marriage gave their marriage laws predominance over Federal Marriage law.

For the third time, I direct to a direct and accurate quote of the Windsor decision itself:

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see , e.g., Loving v. Virginia , 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa."

Windsor v. US

None of which your comments have the slightest relevance to. Your mistake would be akin to replying that I'm wrong that the Toyota Camry comes in white because it has a 4 cylinder engine.

The two really have nothing to do with each other. Nor does one disprove the other. Much like your babble about the equal protection clause has nothing to do with whether it is the state or the federal government that defines and regulates marriage.

Your post #41 to which I responded:
"Says who?

You may want to read the Windsor v. US decision. Subject to constitutional guarantees, the State defines marriage."

What you wrote revolved around your declarative implication that US v. Windsor returned full power to define marriage to the States by striking down DOMA. I fully understood that, but noted your error in that your declaration had been UNDERMINED by Obergefell v. Hodges decided just last June!

You clearly didn't 'fully understand'. As your entire argument collapses upon an even causal reading of my 3 sentence post. I'll bold where your argument shatters:

"Says who?

You may want to read the Windsor v. US decision. Subject to constitutional guarantees, the State defines marriage."

You completely ignored that section, pretending it didn't exist. Despite it being the axis around which Obergefell turned.

The Obergefell ruling NEVER found that the regulation of marriage was the arena of the federal government. Or overturned any of their findings in Windsor. Instead, the Obegefell Court found that the laws prohibiting marriage for same sex couples violated the due process and equal protection clauses.

You've mistaken a violation of constitutional guarantees with the Courts finding that marriage is defined by the Federal government. They aren't the same thing.

Your inability to discern the difference is why you were wrong. And I'm still right. As subject to constitutional guarantees, the State do define marriage.

Says who?

Says the Windsor Court itself:

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see , e.g., Loving v. Virginia , 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa , 419 U. S. 393, 404.

Windsor v. US

With the courts making it just as clear that what the meant by 'regulation of domestic relations', was marriage.

The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States,” Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U. S. 379, 383–384.

Windsor v. US

You simply didn't know what you were talking about. And I did. Remember that. Its likely to be a pattern in our discussions.

I laid out the legal path from Windsor leading to Obergefell to show that SCOTUS had banned the several States from any obstruction of same sex marriage because it was violative of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of Amendment XIV.

You laid out a legal path that's gloriously irrelevant to what we're discussing: who defines marriage, the State or the Federal Government.

Subject to constitutional guarantees, the States define marriage. Exactly as the Windsor ruling said clearly and unquestioningly. And the Obergefell ruling never overturns. Your continuing confusion on this point is obvious.

"Says who?

You may want to read the Windsor v. US decision. Subject to constitutional guarantees, the State defines marriage."

Followed by:

You completely ignored that section, pretending it didn't exist. Despite it being the axis around which Obergefell turned.

SCOTUS is empowered to REDEFINE a State's definition of marriage to be in accord with constitutional guaranties, as they did in Obergefell, by telling the States with laws defining marriage to be ONLY between one man and one woman and forced those States with that definition to change that same definition. Who has the final word in the definition of marriage across the land? The several States are not empowered to make the final call on their definition of marriage.

Again, you've mistaken a violation of constitutional guarantees with the Courts finding that marriage is defined by the Federal government.

They aren't the same thing. The basis of the Obergefell ruling wasn't that the regulation and definition of marriage belonged to the Federal government and not the State. Instead the court found that state marriage laws violated constitutional guarantees, by your own admission. Contrary to your claims the USSC has found that subject to constitutional guarantees the States define and regulate marriage.

Its not me you're arguing with. Its the Supreme Court themselves:

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see , e.g., Loving v. Virginia , 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa."

Windsor v. US

With the courts making it just as clear that what the meant by 'regulation of domestic relations', was marriage.

"The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States,” Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agle."

Windsor v. US

You blundered, completely missing any mention of 'subject to constitutional guarantees' in my post, despite the post only being 3 sentences long. Which was just an epic fuck up. And now you blunder, ignoring the Supreme Court itself on this very issue, insisting that you know better.

Alas, you don't.

The Windsor court explicitly contradicted you and affirmed my position. While the Obergefell court never overturned any portion of the Windsor ruling. Ignore the Supreme Court as you wish. It doesn't change the basis of the Windsor or Obergefell rulings. Or the caselaw that found that subject to constitutional guarantees, the definition of marriage was up to the State.

Again, you've mistaken a violation of constitutional guarantees with the Courts finding that marriage is defined by the Federal government.

You are in error again.

The several States DO NOT have primacy under law to define and regulate marriage. That point was made clear in US v. Windsor given Justice Kennedy wrote the following in the decision:

"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. By history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage, as will be discussed in more detail, has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States. Yet it is further established that Congress, in enacting discrete statutes, can make determinations that bear on marital rights and privileges." [Emphasis Added]

With every example of such congressional legislation cited by the court being in reference to the enactment of FEDERAL standards, benefits, and recognition. The retention of life insurance under a FEDERAL program. The Federal recognition of immigration status after marriage. With the authority discrete and limited to the enactment of FEDERAL policy.

At no point does the Windsor court ever recognize that federal law overrides State law on the issues of marriage. Or grant the Federal government supreme authority over marriage's regulation or definition. Quite the opposite. The Windsor court recognizes (as the Sosna court did before it a generation earlier) that the authority of the States over marriage is 'virtually exclusive'.

"History and tradition" do not establish primacy under the law! That is borne out by the facts of the case itself.

Nonsense. And you know its nonsense. As in the very next paragraph, the court demonstrates that the foundation of State supremacy of regulating and defining marriage in binding legal precedent:

In order to assess the validity of that intervention it is necessary to discuss the extent of the state power and authority 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.”Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393,(1975).

Sosna v. Iowa is far more than 'history and tradition'. Its binding legal precedent that the Windsor court uses to demonstrate the scope and breadth of the State's authority to regulate and define marriage. With the Windsor Court citing that authority of the State over marriage as 'virtually exclusive', 'virtually exclusive primacy', 'full power' and 'essential authority' with the same court finding that federal authority over marriage is 'discrete' and 'limited' applying only to 'federal policy'.

With the court reiterating the subordinate role the Federal Government plays in defining and regulating marriage yet again only a paragraph after your quote:

[T]he states, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, possessed full power over the subject of marriage and divorce. . . [and] the Constitution delegated no authority to the Government of the United States on the subject of marriage and divorce.” Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U. S. 562, 575 (1906); see also In re Burrus
, 136 U. S. 586, 593–594(1890) (“The whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States”).

Consistent with this allocation of authority, the Federal Government, through our history, has deferred to state-law policy decisions with respect to domestic relations.

Again, obliterating your entire narrative. The Windsor court goes to excruciating lengths iterating and reiterating this same point, articulating the supremacy of the State in the regulation or definition of marriage 9 different times in the ruling.

You inexplicably ignore it no matter how many times the court articulated this point for you. Which they do over and over again.

In order to respect this principle [that there is no federal law of domestic relations, the federal courts, as a general rule, do not adjudicate issues of marital status even when there might otherwise be a basis for federal jurisdiction.

And again....

Federal courts will not hear divorce and custody cases even if they arise in diversity because of “the virtually exclusive primacy . . . of the States in the regulation of domestic relations.” Id., at 714 (Blackmun, J., concurring in judgment).

And again...

The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s
beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States.” Ohio ex rel. Popovici v .Agler, 280 U.S. 379, 383–384 (1930).

And again....

The definition of marriage is the foundation of the State’s broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations with respect to the “[p]rotection of offspring, property interests, and the enforcement of marital responsibilities.”

And you ignore all of them. What you dismiss as 'history and tradition' is overwhelming binding legal precedent set down by the supreme court in half a dozen cases, and affirmed by the Windsor court as definding the
virtually exclusive', 'virtual exclusive primacy' 'essential authority' and 'broader authority' that the States possess.

All of which you already know. But really hoped we didn't. As its impossible that you missed these citations. You know of them and then intentionally omitted them. Meaning that your argument relies on the ignorance of your audience.

Your 'appeal to ignorance' argument fails with me as I'm quite familiar with the Windsor ruling. And can quote how you're wrong. And wrong in so many ways.

"History and tradition" do not establish primacy under the law! That is borne out by the facts of the case itself.

Again, nonsense. You've got it exactly wrong again, as the how the case bore out explicitly contradicts your 'the federal government defines marriage' babble. The case bore out exactly in line with the authority of the State to define and regulate marriage. As the Windsor decision made ludicriously clear:

The State’s power in defining the marital relation is of central relevance in this case quite apart from principles of federalism. Here the State’s decision to give this class of persons the right to marry conferred upon them a dignity and status of immense import. When the State used its historic and essential authority to define the marital relation in this way, its role and its power in making the decision enhanced the recognition, dignity, and protection of the class in their own community.

"The States power in defining the marital relation is of central relevance in this case. "

Not only are you laughably wrong. Not only did the Supreme Court explicitly contradict you no less than 9 times. But the very issue you dismiss as not existing (State supremecy over marriage) is central to the case.

You can pretend the Windsor court didn't find this. But you can't make us pretend. Which is why you failed.

DOMA was another definition of marriage which applied to all States; those States permitting and those States forbidding same sex marriage. Did the Court rule that Amendment X was in any wise involved in the decision regarding primacy or did it rule that DOMA was violative of Amendment XIV?

Section 3 of P. L. 104-199 §3(a), DOMA, codified at 1 US §7 REDEFINED marriage. SCOTUS did not find that violative of Amendment X. How did that happen if the States have primacy?

Sigh...its like watching a dog chase its own tail. If you'd bothered to read for comprehension rather than for the bits to ignore, the Windsor court lays it out for you explicitly.

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. Despite these considerations, it is unnecessary to decide whether this federal intrusion on state power is a violation of the Constitution because it disrupts the federal balance.

The State’s power in defining the marital relation is of central relevance in this case quite apart from principles of federalism. Here the State’s decision to give this class of persons the right to marry conferred upon them a dignity and status of immense import. When the State used its historic and essential authority to define the marital relation in this way, its role and its power in making the decision enhanced the recognition, dignity, and protection of the class in their own community.....

....The Federal Government uses this state-defined class for the opposite purpose—to impose restrictions and disabilities. That result requires this Court now to address whether the resulting injury and indignity is a deprivation of an essential part of the liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment. What the State of New York treats as alike the federal law deems unlike by a law designed to injure the same class the State seeks to protect.

There's your answer. The court iterates and reiterates the State primacy over marriage laws, going so far as to cite the States role in defining marriage as central to the case. And finds that its unnecessary to decide on an unconstitutional intrusion onto State power by DOMA.....as DOMA creates a 5th amendment violation by treating the same class of citizen within NY differently.

With the court's findings that NY had the authority to define marriage to allow same sex marriages "without doubt a proper exercise of its sovereign authority within our federal system, all in the way that the Framers of the Constitution intended."

An authority you insist the States don't have. Not only are you laughably, comically wrong that the States don't have primacy over the definition of marriage, the court's cited the State's power to define marriage as central to the case.

So you ignored every instance of it in the Windsor decision.

The answer is that the States do not. "By history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage...has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States." (Ibid) In other words BY CUSTOM not law! So much for your claim "the State defines marriage" in post #41 to which I initially responded in #43.

With the 'history and tradition' backed up by no less than 6 different Supreme Court cases. Which the Windsor court cited exhaustively. And you ignored every single example of binding precedent cited by the Windsor court.

With the Windsor court citing the state's power to define marriage as central to the case. A power you laughably insist the States do not possess.

Despite the Windsor Court recognizing that the States DO have such power no less than 9 times and finding that power is central to the Windsor case. Your argument is literally to ignore the findings of the Supreme Court and replace them with your own.

Um......you're nobody. You v. the Supreme Court has the same winner every time. And its not you. Get used to the idea.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Again, you simply don't know what you're talking about. One of the many findings of the Windsor ruling found that the State's supremecy over marriage gave their marriage laws predominance over Federal Marriage law.

For the third time, I direct to a direct and accurate quote of the Windsor decision itself:

Your post #41 to which I responded:
"Says who?

You may want to read the Windsor v. US decision. Subject to constitutional guarantees, the State defines marriage."

What you wrote revolved around your declarative implication that US v. Windsor returned full power to define marriage to the States by striking down DOMA. I fully understood that, but noted your error in that your declaration had been UNDERMINED by Obergefell v. Hodges decided just last June!

You clearly didn't 'fully understand'. As your entire argument collapses upon an even causal reading of my 3 sentence post. I'll bold where your argument shatters:

"Says who?

You may want to read the Windsor v. US decision. Subject to constitutional guarantees, the State defines marriage."

You completely ignored that section, pretending it didn't exist. Despite it being the axis around which Obergefell turned.

The Obergefell ruling NEVER found that the regulation of marriage was the arena of the federal government. Or overturned any of their findings in Windsor. Instead, the Obegefell Court found that the laws prohibiting marriage for same sex couples violated the due process and equal protection clauses.

You've mistaken a violation of constitutional guarantees with the Courts finding that marriage is defined by the Federal government. They aren't the same thing.

Your inability to discern the difference is why you were wrong. And I'm still right. As subject to constitutional guarantees, the State do define marriage.

Says who?

Says the Windsor Court itself:

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see , e.g., Loving v. Virginia , 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa , 419 U. S. 393, 404.

Windsor v. US

With the courts making it just as clear that what the meant by 'regulation of domestic relations', was marriage.

The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States,” Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U. S. 379, 383–384.

Windsor v. US

You simply didn't know what you were talking about. And I did. Remember that. Its likely to be a pattern in our discussions.

I laid out the legal path from Windsor leading to Obergefell to show that SCOTUS had banned the several States from any obstruction of same sex marriage because it was violative of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of Amendment XIV.

You laid out a legal path that's gloriously irrelevant to what we're discussing: who defines marriage, the State or the Federal Government.

Subject to constitutional guarantees, the States define marriage. Exactly as the Windsor ruling said clearly and unquestioningly. And the Obergefell ruling never overturns. Your continuing confusion on this point is obvious.

"Says who?

You may want to read the Windsor v. US decision. Subject to constitutional guarantees, the State defines marriage."

Followed by:

You completely ignored that section, pretending it didn't exist. Despite it being the axis around which Obergefell turned.

SCOTUS is empowered to REDEFINE a State's definition of marriage to be in accord with constitutional guaranties, as they did in Obergefell, by telling the States with laws defining marriage to be ONLY between one man and one woman and forced those States with that definition to change that same definition. Who has the final word in the definition of marriage across the land? The several States are not empowered to make the final call on their definition of marriage.

Again, you've mistaken a violation of constitutional guarantees with the Courts finding that marriage is defined by the Federal government.

They aren't the same thing. The basis of the Obergefell ruling wasn't that the regulation and definition of marriage belonged to the Federal government and not the State. Instead the court found that state marriage laws violated constitutional guarantees, by your own admission. Contrary to your claims the USSC has found that subject to constitutional guarantees the States define and regulate marriage.

Its not me you're arguing with. Its the Supreme Court themselves:

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see , e.g., Loving v. Virginia , 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa."

Windsor v. US

With the courts making it just as clear that what the meant by 'regulation of domestic relations', was marriage.

"The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States,” Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agle."

Windsor v. US

You blundered, completely missing any mention of 'subject to constitutional guarantees' in my post, despite the post only being 3 sentences long. Which was just an epic fuck up. And now you blunder, ignoring the Supreme Court itself on this very issue, insisting that you know better.

Alas, you don't.

The Windsor court explicitly contradicted you and affirmed my position. While the Obergefell court never overturned any portion of the Windsor ruling. Ignore the Supreme Court as you wish. It doesn't change the basis of the Windsor or Obergefell rulings. Or the caselaw that found that subject to constitutional guarantees, the definition of marriage was up to the State.

Again, you've mistaken a violation of constitutional guarantees with the Courts finding that marriage is defined by the Federal government.

You are in error again.

The several States DO NOT have primacy under law to define and regulate marriage. That point was made clear in US v. Windsor given Justice Kennedy wrote the following in the decision:

"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. By history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage, as will be discussed in more detail, has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States. Yet it is further established that Congress, in enacting discrete statutes, can make determinations that bear on marital rights and privileges." [Emphasis Added]

With every example of such congressional legislation cited by the court being in reference to the enactment of FEDERAL standards, benefits, and recognition. The retention of life insurance under a FEDERAL program. The Federal recognition of immigration status after marriage. With the authority discrete and limited to the enactment of FEDERAL policy.

At no point does the Windsor court ever recognize that federal law overrides State law on the issues of marriage. Or grant the Federal government supreme authority over marriage's regulation or definition. Quite the opposite. The Windsor court recognizes (as the Sosna court did before it a generation earlier) that the authority of the States over marriage is 'virtually exclusive'.

"History and tradition" do not establish primacy under the law! That is borne out by the facts of the case itself.

Nonsense. And you know its nonsense. As in the very next paragraph, the court demonstrates that the foundation of State supremacy of regulating and defining marriage in binding legal precedent:

In order to assess the validity of that intervention it is necessary to discuss the extent of the state power and authority 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.”Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393,(1975).

Sosna v. Iowa is far more than 'history and tradition'. Its binding legal precedent that the Windsor court uses to demonstrate the scope and breadth of the State's authority to regulate and define marriage. With the Windsor Court citing that authority of the State over marriage as 'virtually exclusive', 'virtually exclusive primacy', 'full power' and 'essential authority' with the same court finding that federal authority over marriage is 'discrete' and 'limited' applying only to 'federal policy'.

With the court reiterating the subordinate role the Federal Government plays in defining and regulating marriage yet again only a paragraph after your quote:

[T]he states, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, possessed full power over the subject of marriage and divorce. . . [and] the Constitution delegated no authority to the Government of the United States on the subject of marriage and divorce.” Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U. S. 562, 575 (1906); see also In re Burrus
, 136 U. S. 586, 593–594(1890) (“The whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States”).

Consistent with this allocation of authority, the Federal Government, through our history, has deferred to state-law policy decisions with respect to domestic relations.

Again, obliterating your entire narrative. The Windsor court goes to excruciating lengths iterating and reiterating this same point, articulating the supremacy of the State in the regulation or definition of marriage 9 different times in the ruling.

You inexplicably ignore it no matter how many times the court articulated this point for you. Which they do over and over again.

In order to respect this principle [that there is no federal law of domestic relations, the federal courts, as a general rule, do not adjudicate issues of marital status even when there might otherwise be a basis for federal jurisdiction.

And again....

Federal courts will not hear divorce and custody cases even if they arise in diversity because of “the virtually exclusive primacy . . . of the States in the regulation of domestic relations.” Id., at 714 (Blackmun, J., concurring in judgment).

And again...

The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s
beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States.” Ohio ex rel. Popovici v .Agler, 280 U.S. 379, 383–384 (1930).

And again....

The definition of marriage is the foundation of the State’s broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations with respect to the “[p]rotection of offspring, property interests, and the enforcement of marital responsibilities.”

And you ignore all of them. What you dismiss as 'history and tradition' is overwhelming binding legal precedent set down by the supreme court in half a dozen cases, and affirmed by the Windsor court as definding the
virtually exclusive', 'virtual exclusive primacy' 'essential authority' and 'broader authority' that the States possess.

All of which you already know. But really hoped we didn't. As its impossible that you missed these citations. You know of them and then intentionally omitted them. Meaning that your argument relies on the ignorance of your audience.

Your 'appeal to ignorance' argument fails with me as I'm quite familiar with the Windsor ruling. And can quote how you're wrong. And wrong in so many ways.

"History and tradition" do not establish primacy under the law! That is borne out by the facts of the case itself.

Again, nonsense. You've got it exactly wrong again, as the how the case bore out explicitly contradicts your 'the federal government defines marriage' babble. The case bore out exactly in line with the authority of the State to define and regulate marriage. As the Windsor decision made ludicriously clear:

The State’s power in defining the marital relation is of central relevance in this case quite apart from principles of federalism. Here the State’s decision to give this class of persons the right to marry conferred upon them a dignity and status of immense import. When the State used its historic and essential authority to define the marital relation in this way, its role and its power in making the decision enhanced the recognition, dignity, and protection of the class in their own community.

"The States power in defining the marital relation is of central relevance in this case. "

Not only are you laughably wrong. Not only did the Supreme Court explicitly contradict you no less than 9 times. But the very issue you dismiss as not existing (State supremecy over marriage) is central to the case.

You can pretend the Windsor court didn't find this. But you can't make us pretend. Which is why you failed.

DOMA was another definition of marriage which applied to all States; those States permitting and those States forbidding same sex marriage. Did the Court rule that Amendment X was in any wise involved in the decision regarding primacy or did it rule that DOMA was violative of Amendment XIV?

Section 3 of P. L. 104-199 §3(a), DOMA, codified at 1 US §7 REDEFINED marriage. SCOTUS did not find that violative of Amendment X. How did that happen if the States have primacy?

Sigh...its like watching a dog chase its own tail. If you'd bothered to read for comprehension rather than for the bits to ignore, the Windsor court lays it out for you explicitly.

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. Despite these considerations, it is unnecessary to decide whether this federal intrusion on state power is a violation of the Constitution because it disrupts the federal balance.

The State’s power in defining the marital relation is of central relevance in this case quite apart from principles of federalism. Here the State’s decision to give this class of persons the right to marry conferred upon them a dignity and status of immense import. When the State used its historic and essential authority to define the marital relation in this way, its role and its power in making the decision enhanced the recognition, dignity, and protection of the class in their own community.....

....The Federal Government uses this state-defined class for the opposite purpose—to impose restrictions and disabilities. That result requires this Court now to address whether the resulting injury and indignity is a deprivation of an essential part of the liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment. What the State of New York treats as alike the federal law deems unlike by a law designed to injure the same class the State seeks to protect.

There's your answer. The court iterates and reiterates the State primacy over marriage laws, going so far as to cite the States role in defining marriage as central to the case. And finds that its unnecessary to decide on an unconstitutional intrusion onto State power by DOMA.....as DOMA creates a 5th amendment violation by treating the same class of citizen within NY differently.

With the court's findings that NY had the authority to define marriage to allow same sex marriages "without doubt a proper exercise of its sovereign authority within our federal system, all in the way that the Framers of the Constitution intended."

An authority you insist the States don't have. Not only are you laughably, comically wrong that the States don't have primacy over the definition of marriage, the court's cited the State's power to define marriage as central to the case.

So you ignored every instance of it in the Windsor decision.

The answer is that the States do not. "By history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage...has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States." (Ibid) In other words BY CUSTOM not law! So much for your claim "the State defines marriage" in post #41 to which I initially responded in #43.

With the 'history and tradition' backed up by no less than 6 different Supreme Court cases. Which the Windsor court cited exhaustively. And you ignored every single example of binding precedent cited by the Windsor court.

With the Windsor court citing the state's power to define marriage as central to the case. A power you laughably insist the States do not possess.

Despite the Windsor Court recognizing that the States DO have such power no less than 9 times and finding that power is central to the Windsor case. Your argument is literally to ignore the findings of the Supreme Court and replace them with your own.

Um......you're nobody. You v. the Supreme Court has the same winner every time. And its not you. Get used to the idea.

I'm not baffled at all by your selective citations, bluster and other assorted bull shit! You cited a portion of a portion of a passage from US v. Windsor I had cited but you ignored the damning sentence of passage that destroys your position. Here it once more in its totality:

"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. By history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage, as will be discussed in more detail, has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States. Yet it is further established that Congress, in enacting discrete statutes, can " [Emphasis Added]

Given the Federal is acknowledged by SCOTUS as having the power for Congress to "...make determinations that bear on marital rights and privileges...." the Court has clearly stated that the Congress has the constitutional authority to do so. This does not infer, imply or in any wise confirm that Congress has primacy in this area. However, if Congress has some responsibility under law re: marital rights and privileges as determined in US v. Winsor as cited directly above, then the several States could not have primacy. If the States did have primacy over the subject, then the Court would have had grounds to also find DOMA as violative of Amendment X but they didn't because that did not apply.

And again, "history and tradition" is CUSTOM not LAW!

 

[Skylar]

You clearly didn't 'fully understand'. As your entire argument collapses upon an even causal reading of my 3 sentence post. I'll bold where your argument shatters:

You completely ignored that section, pretending it didn't exist. Despite it being the axis around which Obergefell turned.

The Obergefell ruling NEVER found that the regulation of marriage was the arena of the federal government. Or overturned any of their findings in Windsor. Instead, the Obegefell Court found that the laws prohibiting marriage for same sex couples violated the due process and equal protection clauses.

You've mistaken a violation of constitutional guarantees with the Courts finding that marriage is defined by the Federal government. They aren't the same thing.

Your inability to discern the difference is why you were wrong. And I'm still right. As subject to constitutional guarantees, the State do define marriage.

Says who?

Says the Windsor Court itself:

With the courts making it just as clear that what the meant by 'regulation of domestic relations', was marriage.

You simply didn't know what you were talking about. And I did. Remember that. Its likely to be a pattern in our discussions.

You laid out a legal path that's gloriously irrelevant to what we're discussing: who defines marriage, the State or the Federal Government.

Subject to constitutional guarantees, the States define marriage. Exactly as the Windsor ruling said clearly and unquestioningly. And the Obergefell ruling never overturns. Your continuing confusion on this point is obvious.

"Says who?

You may want to read the Windsor v. US decision. Subject to constitutional guarantees, the State defines marriage."

Followed by:

You completely ignored that section, pretending it didn't exist. Despite it being the axis around which Obergefell turned.

SCOTUS is empowered to REDEFINE a State's definition of marriage to be in accord with constitutional guaranties, as they did in Obergefell, by telling the States with laws defining marriage to be ONLY between one man and one woman and forced those States with that definition to change that same definition. Who has the final word in the definition of marriage across the land? The several States are not empowered to make the final call on their definition of marriage.

Again, you've mistaken a violation of constitutional guarantees with the Courts finding that marriage is defined by the Federal government.

They aren't the same thing. The basis of the Obergefell ruling wasn't that the regulation and definition of marriage belonged to the Federal government and not the State. Instead the court found that state marriage laws violated constitutional guarantees, by your own admission. Contrary to your claims the USSC has found that subject to constitutional guarantees the States define and regulate marriage.

Its not me you're arguing with. Its the Supreme Court themselves:

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see , e.g., Loving v. Virginia , 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa."

Windsor v. US

With the courts making it just as clear that what the meant by 'regulation of domestic relations', was marriage.

"The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States,” Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agle."

Windsor v. US

You blundered, completely missing any mention of 'subject to constitutional guarantees' in my post, despite the post only being 3 sentences long. Which was just an epic fuck up. And now you blunder, ignoring the Supreme Court itself on this very issue, insisting that you know better.

Alas, you don't.

The Windsor court explicitly contradicted you and affirmed my position. While the Obergefell court never overturned any portion of the Windsor ruling. Ignore the Supreme Court as you wish. It doesn't change the basis of the Windsor or Obergefell rulings. Or the caselaw that found that subject to constitutional guarantees, the definition of marriage was up to the State.

Again, you've mistaken a violation of constitutional guarantees with the Courts finding that marriage is defined by the Federal government.

You are in error again.

The several States DO NOT have primacy under law to define and regulate marriage. That point was made clear in US v. Windsor given Justice Kennedy wrote the following in the decision:

"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. By history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage, as will be discussed in more detail, has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States. Yet it is further established that Congress, in enacting discrete statutes, can make determinations that bear on marital rights and privileges." [Emphasis Added]

With every example of such congressional legislation cited by the court being in reference to the enactment of FEDERAL standards, benefits, and recognition. The retention of life insurance under a FEDERAL program. The Federal recognition of immigration status after marriage. With the authority discrete and limited to the enactment of FEDERAL policy.

At no point does the Windsor court ever recognize that federal law overrides State law on the issues of marriage. Or grant the Federal government supreme authority over marriage's regulation or definition. Quite the opposite. The Windsor court recognizes (as the Sosna court did before it a generation earlier) that the authority of the States over marriage is 'virtually exclusive'.

"History and tradition" do not establish primacy under the law! That is borne out by the facts of the case itself.

Nonsense. And you know its nonsense. As in the very next paragraph, the court demonstrates that the foundation of State supremacy of regulating and defining marriage in binding legal precedent:

In order to assess the validity of that intervention it is necessary to discuss the extent of the state power and authority 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.”Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393,(1975).

Sosna v. Iowa is far more than 'history and tradition'. Its binding legal precedent that the Windsor court uses to demonstrate the scope and breadth of the State's authority to regulate and define marriage. With the Windsor Court citing that authority of the State over marriage as 'virtually exclusive', 'virtually exclusive primacy', 'full power' and 'essential authority' with the same court finding that federal authority over marriage is 'discrete' and 'limited' applying only to 'federal policy'.

With the court reiterating the subordinate role the Federal Government plays in defining and regulating marriage yet again only a paragraph after your quote:

[T]he states, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, possessed full power over the subject of marriage and divorce. . . [and] the Constitution delegated no authority to the Government of the United States on the subject of marriage and divorce.” Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U. S. 562, 575 (1906); see also In re Burrus
, 136 U. S. 586, 593–594(1890) (“The whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States”).

Consistent with this allocation of authority, the Federal Government, through our history, has deferred to state-law policy decisions with respect to domestic relations.

Again, obliterating your entire narrative. The Windsor court goes to excruciating lengths iterating and reiterating this same point, articulating the supremacy of the State in the regulation or definition of marriage 9 different times in the ruling.

You inexplicably ignore it no matter how many times the court articulated this point for you. Which they do over and over again.

In order to respect this principle [that there is no federal law of domestic relations, the federal courts, as a general rule, do not adjudicate issues of marital status even when there might otherwise be a basis for federal jurisdiction.

And again....

Federal courts will not hear divorce and custody cases even if they arise in diversity because of “the virtually exclusive primacy . . . of the States in the regulation of domestic relations.” Id., at 714 (Blackmun, J., concurring in judgment).

And again...

The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s
beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States.” Ohio ex rel. Popovici v .Agler, 280 U.S. 379, 383–384 (1930).

And again....

The definition of marriage is the foundation of the State’s broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations with respect to the “[p]rotection of offspring, property interests, and the enforcement of marital responsibilities.”

And you ignore all of them. What you dismiss as 'history and tradition' is overwhelming binding legal precedent set down by the supreme court in half a dozen cases, and affirmed by the Windsor court as definding the
virtually exclusive', 'virtual exclusive primacy' 'essential authority' and 'broader authority' that the States possess.

All of which you already know. But really hoped we didn't. As its impossible that you missed these citations. You know of them and then intentionally omitted them. Meaning that your argument relies on the ignorance of your audience.

Your 'appeal to ignorance' argument fails with me as I'm quite familiar with the Windsor ruling. And can quote how you're wrong. And wrong in so many ways.

"History and tradition" do not establish primacy under the law! That is borne out by the facts of the case itself.

Again, nonsense. You've got it exactly wrong again, as the how the case bore out explicitly contradicts your 'the federal government defines marriage' babble. The case bore out exactly in line with the authority of the State to define and regulate marriage. As the Windsor decision made ludicriously clear:

The State’s power in defining the marital relation is of central relevance in this case quite apart from principles of federalism. Here the State’s decision to give this class of persons the right to marry conferred upon them a dignity and status of immense import. When the State used its historic and essential authority to define the marital relation in this way, its role and its power in making the decision enhanced the recognition, dignity, and protection of the class in their own community.

"The States power in defining the marital relation is of central relevance in this case. "

Not only are you laughably wrong. Not only did the Supreme Court explicitly contradict you no less than 9 times. But the very issue you dismiss as not existing (State supremecy over marriage) is central to the case.

You can pretend the Windsor court didn't find this. But you can't make us pretend. Which is why you failed.

DOMA was another definition of marriage which applied to all States; those States permitting and those States forbidding same sex marriage. Did the Court rule that Amendment X was in any wise involved in the decision regarding primacy or did it rule that DOMA was violative of Amendment XIV?

Section 3 of P. L. 104-199 §3(a), DOMA, codified at 1 US §7 REDEFINED marriage. SCOTUS did not find that violative of Amendment X. How did that happen if the States have primacy?

Sigh...its like watching a dog chase its own tail. If you'd bothered to read for comprehension rather than for the bits to ignore, the Windsor court lays it out for you explicitly.

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. Despite these considerations, it is unnecessary to decide whether this federal intrusion on state power is a violation of the Constitution because it disrupts the federal balance.

The State’s power in defining the marital relation is of central relevance in this case quite apart from principles of federalism. Here the State’s decision to give this class of persons the right to marry conferred upon them a dignity and status of immense import. When the State used its historic and essential authority to define the marital relation in this way, its role and its power in making the decision enhanced the recognition, dignity, and protection of the class in their own community.....

....The Federal Government uses this state-defined class for the opposite purpose—to impose restrictions and disabilities. That result requires this Court now to address whether the resulting injury and indignity is a deprivation of an essential part of the liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment. What the State of New York treats as alike the federal law deems unlike by a law designed to injure the same class the State seeks to protect.

There's your answer. The court iterates and reiterates the State primacy over marriage laws, going so far as to cite the States role in defining marriage as central to the case. And finds that its unnecessary to decide on an unconstitutional intrusion onto State power by DOMA.....as DOMA creates a 5th amendment violation by treating the same class of citizen within NY differently.

With the court's findings that NY had the authority to define marriage to allow same sex marriages "without doubt a proper exercise of its sovereign authority within our federal system, all in the way that the Framers of the Constitution intended."

An authority you insist the States don't have. Not only are you laughably, comically wrong that the States don't have primacy over the definition of marriage, the court's cited the State's power to define marriage as central to the case.

So you ignored every instance of it in the Windsor decision.

The answer is that the States do not. "By history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage...has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States." (Ibid) In other words BY CUSTOM not law! So much for your claim "the State defines marriage" in post #41 to which I initially responded in #43.

With the 'history and tradition' backed up by no less than 6 different Supreme Court cases. Which the Windsor court cited exhaustively. And you ignored every single example of binding precedent cited by the Windsor court.

With the Windsor court citing the state's power to define marriage as central to the case. A power you laughably insist the States do not possess.

Despite the Windsor Court recognizing that the States DO have such power no less than 9 times and finding that power is central to the Windsor case. Your argument is literally to ignore the findings of the Supreme Court and replace them with your own.

Um......you're nobody. You v. the Supreme Court has the same winner every time. And its not you. Get used to the idea.

I'm not baffled at all by your selective citations, bluster and other assorted bull shit! You cited a portion of a portion of a passage from US v. Windsor I had cited but you ignored the damning sentence of passage that destroys your position. Here it once more in its totality:

"Selective citations"? The court goes on about the supremacy of the States over the Federal government in defining marriage for 7 pages. I showed you a fraction of their evisceration of your argument.

You cited one passage that the court uses at the beginning of its ruling that cites 'discrete' and 'limited' federal power to define marriage limited to federal policy. I cited half a dozen passages AFTER your citation where the court systematically lauds the supremacy of the State in defining marriage. Calling that power 'virtually exclusive province of the States', 'reserved to the States', and 'the states.....possess full power over the subject of marriage and divorce".

With the Supreme Court declaring that the power of the State to define marriage is of central relevance to the Windsor case.

And you're *still* clinging to the turd of an argument that the States don't have primacy regulating and defining marriage?

Holy shit, dude. You're raising willful ignorance to an art form.

Given the Federal is acknowledged by SCOTUS as having the power for Congress to "...make determinations that bear on marital rights and privileges...." the Court has clearly stated that the Congress has the constitutional authority to do so.

In a limited and discrete fashion to further federal policy. With every example given by the courts related to the implementation of FEDERAL laws. The two examples the court gives being participation in a federal life insurance program and the implementation of federal immigration laws.

And the court recognizing 9 times over 7 subsequent pages citing 6 different supreme court rulings that the power to regulate and define marriage is reserved for the State.

A power you insanely insist the State does not have. Despite the Windsor court affirming that it is this very power that is central to the Windsor case:

This does not infer, imply or in any wise confirm that Congress has primacy in this area. However, if Congress has some responsibility under law re: marital rights and privileges as determined in US v. Winsor as cited directly above, then the several States could not have primacy. If the States did have primacy over the subject, then the Court would have had grounds to also find DOMA as violative of Amendment X but they didn't because that did not apply.

They didn't 'infer' that DOMA was far more sweeping than the limited and discrete laws that are allowed to the Federal government. THe Windsor court came out and said it:

Though these discrete examples establish the constitutionality of limited federal laws that regulate the meaning
of marriage in order to further federal policy, DOMA has a far greater reach; for it enacts a directive applicable to over 1,000 federal statutes and the whole realm of federal regulations. And its operation is directed to a class of persons that the laws of New York, and of 11 other States,have sought to protect.

Note again the Court's use of 'discrete' and 'limited' in relation to federal laws regarding marriage.....and the limiting of those laws to furthering federal policy. And finds that DOMA had a far greater reach than these limited and discrete congressional laws.

The court then spends 7 PAGES citing the supremacy of the State in issues of marriage. Citing the previous supreme court rulings that the States held primacy in issues of marriage and divorce. Including EVERY of the citations above that you ignored and pretend

And again, "history and tradition" is CUSTOM not LAW!

Again, the Supreme Court cited previous supreme court rulings as the basis of their findings that the domestic relations like marriage are the virtually the exclusive provence of the States. With the Windsor court finding this power to be the intent of the Constitution itself.

With the Windsor court finding that NY's excercise of authority in define marriage to include same sex couples as 'without doubt a proper exercise of its sovereign authority within our federal system, all in the way that the Framers of the Constitution intended."

"All in the way that the Framers of the Constitution Intended."

That is the standard you are ignoring. You simply ignore any of the Supreme Court rulings you don't like, any portion of the Windsor ruling you don't like. And then laughably declare that because you have ignored any mention of the State primacy over marriage......that the States have no such power. Despite the Windsor court recognizing that very power as central to the Windsor case:

The State’s power in defining the marital relation is of central relevance in this case quite apart from principles of federalism.

A power you still insist the States don't have. And the Supreme Court explicitly finds that the States do have.

9 TIMES. All after your single citation. Simply destroying your entire argument.

 

[koshergrl]

No surprise the butt fuck brigade doesn't or can't comprehend why this is a good win for Kim and religious rights in Kentucky. Oh well sit back and watch girls.

Religious rights? Trashing your oath as a GOVERNMENT employee is a right? WTF?
AGAIN, THE GOVERNMENT DOESNT HAVE RIGHTS

Kim Davis didn't take an oath to marry faggots, nor did she swear to commit sacrilege for the job. She took an oath to serve the majority of her community, which she did.

 

[Skylar]

No surprise the butt fuck brigade doesn't or can't comprehend why this is a good win for Kim and religious rights in Kentucky. Oh well sit back and watch girls.

Religious rights? Trashing your oath as a GOVERNMENT employee is a right? WTF?
AGAIN, THE GOVERNMENT DOESNT HAVE RIGHTS

Kim Davis didn't take an oath to marry faggots, nor did she swear to commit sacrilege for the job. She took an oath to serve the majority of her community, which she did.

She took an oath to uphold the constitution. And the Supreme court is delegated the judicial power to decide when the constitution has been violated. States were found to be required to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples under the constitution.

She's ignoring her duty and trying to use the state to impose her religion on unwilling people.

She was even offered an out: let a deputy issue those licenses. She didn't have to. She still refused, forbidding any of her fellow clerks from issuing the licenses.

Forcing the public and your coworkers to abide your religion isn't 'religious freedom'.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

The court then spends 7 PAGES citing the supremacy of the State in issues of marriage.

And that is STILL bull shit you're pushing. How can the States have supremacy regarding the definition and regulation of marriage given they're adjudicated in both Federal and State courts with each having distinct functions and responsibilities, and with special regard for the separation of powers and guarantees? It's not my problem if you can't fathom that point!

Have a Nice Day

 

[Skylar]

The court then spends 7 PAGES citing the supremacy of the State in issues of marriage.

And that is STILL bull shit you're pushing.

Says you. The Windsor decision on the other hand says over and over that the States have primacy. With the Windsor court finding the very power you insist *doesn't* exist to be of central relevance to the decision:

The State’s power in defining the marital relation is of central relevance in this case quite apart from principles of federalism.

A power you laughably insist that the States do not possess. Despite the court citing 6 other Supreme Court decisions where the power of the state over marriage was iterated again...

....and again.

....and again.

....and again.

....and again.

....and again.

Going on about the power of the State over marriage for 7 pages. And you ignored it all, pretending it doesn't exist. You failed because you couldn't make us pretend with you.

It's not my problem if you can't fathom that point!

Have a Nice Day

When you muster the courage for another education in constitutional caselaw, I'll be here to give it to you.

 

[TNHarley]

No surprise the butt fuck brigade doesn't or can't comprehend why this is a good win for Kim and religious rights in Kentucky. Oh well sit back and watch girls.

Religious rights? Trashing your oath as a GOVERNMENT employee is a right? WTF?
AGAIN, THE GOVERNMENT DOESNT HAVE RIGHTS

Kim Davis didn't take an oath to marry faggots, nor did she swear to commit sacrilege for the job. She took an oath to serve the majority of her community, which she did.

Her oath meant defending the Constitution. She failed to do that, and her job.

 

[koshergrl]

No surprise the butt fuck brigade doesn't or can't comprehend why this is a good win for Kim and religious rights in Kentucky. Oh well sit back and watch girls.

Religious rights? Trashing your oath as a GOVERNMENT employee is a right? WTF?
AGAIN, THE GOVERNMENT DOESNT HAVE RIGHTS

Kim Davis didn't take an oath to marry faggots, nor did she swear to commit sacrilege for the job. She took an oath to serve the majority of her community, which she did.

Her oath meant defending the Constitution. She failed to do that, and her job.

...so she didn't swear to defend the constitution, as was dishonestly stated. Thank you, I know this, that was my point.

That you people are liars, that is.

 

[koshergrl]

Maybe you can cite the portion of her oath that means, without saying, that her job is to defend the constitution, even if that means committing sacrilege. I'll be right here waiting.

 

[TNHarley]

No surprise the butt fuck brigade doesn't or can't comprehend why this is a good win for Kim and religious rights in Kentucky. Oh well sit back and watch girls.

Religious rights? Trashing your oath as a GOVERNMENT employee is a right? WTF?
AGAIN, THE GOVERNMENT DOESNT HAVE RIGHTS

Kim Davis didn't take an oath to marry faggots, nor did she swear to commit sacrilege for the job. She took an oath to serve the majority of her community, which she did.

Her oath meant defending the Constitution. She failed to do that, and her job.

...so she didn't swear to defend the constitution, as was dishonestly stated. Thank you, I know this, that was my point.

That you people are liars, that is.

Damn girl. Chill the fuck out.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of Trustee of the ____________________ Public Library according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God.

Signed

 

[TNHarley]

For those that salivate for the traitor Kim Davis | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
koshergrl

 

[koshergrl]

Link the oath to its source, please. Not to another thread, where it also isn't sourced.

 

[koshergrl]

Trustee of the public library???

 

[TNHarley]

Section_228
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=21176

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Link the oath to its source, please. Not to another thread, where it also isn't sourced.

From the Kentucky Constitution, Section 228:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of .... according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God."

Section_228