Laymen's Closing Arguments on Gay Marriage

[Silhouette]

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

With special attention to the very last 2 paragraphs. Its not a difficult read. One of those paragraphs is only 5 words long.

And in the entire ruling you'll notice no mention of 'innateness of homosexuality' being the basis of the ruling. Or the 'immutability of homosexuality'. Or that homsexuality is a 'static trait'....There's simply no mention of any of it in any ruling on homosexuality by this court.

And upon that terrible blunder that opens wide the doors for any other repugnant behavioral group to dictate to the majority, that case's essence might be overturned. This would be especially true if that behavioral culture posed a danger or detriment to children they were trying to get access to through adoption agencies. We'd better take a damn good look at the flaws of previous rulings where the importance of innate vs behavior was ignored..

 

[Skylar]

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

With special attention to the very last 2 paragraphs. Its not a difficult read. One of those paragraphs is only 5 words long.

And in the entire ruling you'll notice no mention of 'innateness of homosexuality' being the basis of the ruling. Or the 'immutability of homosexuality'. Or that homsexuality is a 'static trait'....There's simply no mention of any of it in any ruling on homosexuality by this court.

And upon that terrible blunder that opens wide the doors for any other repugnant behavioral group to dictate to the majority, that case's essence might be overturned. This would be especially true if that behavioral culture posed a danger or detriment to children they were trying to get access to through adoption agencies. We'd better take a damn good look at the flaws of previous rulings where the importance of innate vs behavior was ignored..

Well at least you admit your legal 'standard' is just some shit you made up.

 

[Montrovant]

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

With special attention to the very last 2 paragraphs. Its not a difficult read. One of those paragraphs is only 5 words long.

And in the entire ruling you'll notice no mention of 'innateness of homosexuality' being the basis of the ruling. Or the 'immutability of homosexuality'. Or that homsexuality is a 'static trait'....There's simply no mention of any of it in any ruling on homosexuality by this court.

And upon that terrible blunder that opens wide the doors for any other repugnant behavioral group to dictate to the majority, that case's essence might be overturned. This would be especially true if that behavioral culture posed a danger or detriment to children they were trying to get access to through adoption agencies. We'd better take a damn good look at the flaws of previous rulings where the importance of innate vs behavior was ignored..

Would you accept removing protections for religious belief? Or does that, somehow, not need to be innate?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

With special attention to the very last 2 paragraphs. Its not a difficult read. One of those paragraphs is only 5 words long.

And in the entire ruling you'll notice no mention of 'innateness of homosexuality' being the basis of the ruling. Or the 'immutability of homosexuality'. Or that homsexuality is a 'static trait'....There's simply no mention of any of it in any ruling on homosexuality by this court.

And upon that terrible blunder that opens wide the doors for any other repugnant behavioral group to dictate to the majority, that case's essence might be overturned. This would be especially true if that behavioral culture posed a danger or detriment to children they were trying to get access to through adoption agencies. We'd better take a damn good look at the flaws of previous rulings where the importance of innate vs behavior was ignored..

The only blunder is your slippery slope fallacy.

Your ignorance of the Romer ruling comes as no surprise.

The Romer Court merely compelled the state of Colorado to justify Amendment 2 by demonstrating a rational basis for denying gay Americans access to anti-discrimination laws, to provide objective, documented evidence in support of Amendment 2, and to explain how denying gay Americans access to anti-discrimination laws pursued a proper legislative end.

These were the same legal criteria the courts use when determining whether a government's desire to limit, restrict, or preempt citizens' rights are warranted and Constitutional – that Colorado failed to justify the legitimacy of Amendment 2 in the context of 14th Amendment jurisprudence was the fault of the state, not the Supreme Court.

 

[dcraelin]

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

With special attention to the very last 2 paragraphs. Its not a difficult read. One of those paragraphs is only 5 words long.

And in the entire ruling you'll notice no mention of 'innateness of homosexuality' being the basis of the ruling. Or the 'immutability of homosexuality'. Or that homsexuality is a 'static trait'....There's simply no mention of any of it in any ruling on homosexuality by this court.

And upon that terrible blunder that opens wide the doors for any other repugnant behavioral group to dictate to the majority, that case's essence might be overturned. This would be especially true if that behavioral culture posed a danger or detriment to children they were trying to get access to through adoption agencies. We'd better take a damn good look at the flaws of previous rulings where the importance of innate vs behavior was ignored..

The only blunder is your slippery slope fallacy.

Your ignorance of the Romer ruling comes as no surprise.

The Romer Court merely compelled the state of Colorado to justify Amendment 2 by demonstrating a rational basis for denying gay Americans access to anti-discrimination laws, to provide objective, documented evidence in support of Amendment 2, and to explain how denying gay Americans access to anti-discrimination laws pursued a proper legislative end.

These were the same legal criteria the courts use when determining whether a government's desire to limit, restrict, or preempt citizens' rights are warranted and Constitutional – that Colorado failed to justify the legitimacy of Amendment 2 in the context of 14th Amendment jurisprudence was the fault of the state, not the Supreme Court.

I've tried to muddle though some of the Romer decision....it is a difficult read to say the least.......

the prohibited amendment prohibited prohibitions and all the double negative talk makes the conclusion doubtful.

I think in most cases the clearest writing is closest to the truth............read Scalia's dissent....although still confusing it is much clearer than the majority ruling.

I've read some again recently on the so-called "standards of judicial revue." The origins of this line of sophistry come from the courts attempt to outlaw parts of Roosevelt's new deal .........something that should give liberals pause. As should its first application, from Wikipedia "The first and most notable case in which the Supreme Court applied the strict scrutiny standard and found the government's actions valid was Korematsu v. US in which the Court said it was ok to jail Japanese during WWII.

 

[Silhouette]

Would you accept removing protections for religious belief? Or does that, somehow, not need to be innate?

The US Constitution has classified religious convictions as a basis where people cannot discriminate against you. Yet gay people are discriminating against Christians in court every week. And yes, it's the one exception to innateness in the 14th Amendment.

I'll ask again, since your cult already has dogma, evangelizing to children and swift punishment of heretics in the bag, when will you just make it official already and get your tax-exempt status? Seems like that would have been an excellent legal short cut for you instead of trying to create another special category of "non-religious minority behaviors that are exempt from local majority regulation"; which is a MUCH larger hurdle to jump. What you're asking SCOTUS to do by not just declaring yourselves a new religion (which you factually are) is to completely dismantle American law at its foundation and create "special protection" for just some minority behaviors where they cannot be touched by majority regulation: no matter how repugnant the majority finds these behaviors.

You don't need a doctorate in logic to deduce that from there, adding in "equality" any other repugnant behavioral group in the minority can sieze that precedent and run with it.

Would've been much much easier if you folks just called yourselves what you are: a religion, and had all this done with by now.

 

[Skylar]

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

With special attention to the very last 2 paragraphs. Its not a difficult read. One of those paragraphs is only 5 words long.

And in the entire ruling you'll notice no mention of 'innateness of homosexuality' being the basis of the ruling. Or the 'immutability of homosexuality'. Or that homsexuality is a 'static trait'....There's simply no mention of any of it in any ruling on homosexuality by this court.

And upon that terrible blunder that opens wide the doors for any other repugnant behavioral group to dictate to the majority, that case's essence might be overturned. This would be especially true if that behavioral culture posed a danger or detriment to children they were trying to get access to through adoption agencies. We'd better take a damn good look at the flaws of previous rulings where the importance of innate vs behavior was ignored..

The only blunder is your slippery slope fallacy.

Your ignorance of the Romer ruling comes as no surprise.

The Romer Court merely compelled the state of Colorado to justify Amendment 2 by demonstrating a rational basis for denying gay Americans access to anti-discrimination laws, to provide objective, documented evidence in support of Amendment 2, and to explain how denying gay Americans access to anti-discrimination laws pursued a proper legislative end.

These were the same legal criteria the courts use when determining whether a government's desire to limit, restrict, or preempt citizens' rights are warranted and Constitutional – that Colorado failed to justify the legitimacy of Amendment 2 in the context of 14th Amendment jurisprudence was the fault of the state, not the Supreme Court.

I've tried to muddle though some of the Romer decision....it is a difficult read to say the least.......

the prohibited amendment prohibited prohibitions and all the double negative talk makes the conclusion doubtful.

No it doesn't. You just don't know what you're talking about. The ruling is clear is as a bell:

We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

Romer v. Evans

But as usual, you ignore anything you don't agree with. And shocker....you ignore Romer. Alas, the court is unlikely to ignore itself.

 

[Skylar]

Would you accept removing protections for religious belief? Or does that, somehow, not need to be innate?

The US Constitution has classified religious convictions as a basis where people cannot discriminate against you. Yet gay people are discriminating against Christians in court every week. And yes, it's the one exception to innateness in the 14th Amendment.

Again, you have hallucinated your own version of the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment mentions neither 'innateness' nor religion. Nor race, nor country of origin, nor any of the other random 'categories' you've attributed to it.

You don't know what you're talking. You're spouting pseudo-legal gibberish. And your gibberish establishes no legal principle, standard, requirement, nor obligates anyone to do anything. Your 'innateness' standard isn't.

 

[dcraelin]

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

With special attention to the very last 2 paragraphs. Its not a difficult read. One of those paragraphs is only 5 words long.

And in the entire ruling you'll notice no mention of 'innateness of homosexuality' being the basis of the ruling. Or the 'immutability of homosexuality'. Or that homsexuality is a 'static trait'....There's simply no mention of any of it in any ruling on homosexuality by this court.

And upon that terrible blunder that opens wide the doors for any other repugnant behavioral group to dictate to the majority, that case's essence might be overturned. This would be especially true if that behavioral culture posed a danger or detriment to children they were trying to get access to through adoption agencies. We'd better take a damn good look at the flaws of previous rulings where the importance of innate vs behavior was ignored..

The only blunder is your slippery slope fallacy.

Your ignorance of the Romer ruling comes as no surprise.

The Romer Court merely compelled the state of Colorado to justify Amendment 2 by demonstrating a rational basis for denying gay Americans access to anti-discrimination laws, to provide objective, documented evidence in support of Amendment 2, and to explain how denying gay Americans access to anti-discrimination laws pursued a proper legislative end.

These were the same legal criteria the courts use when determining whether a government's desire to limit, restrict, or preempt citizens' rights are warranted and Constitutional – that Colorado failed to justify the legitimacy of Amendment 2 in the context of 14th Amendment jurisprudence was the fault of the state, not the Supreme Court.

I've tried to muddle though some of the Romer decision....it is a difficult read to say the least.......

the prohibited amendment prohibited prohibitions and all the double negative talk makes the conclusion doubtful.

No it doesn't. You just don't know what you're talking about. The ruling is clear is as a bell:

We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

Romer v. Evans

But as usual, you ignore anything you don't agree with. And shocker....you ignore Romer. Alas, the court is unlikely to ignore itself.

The case opens quoting, apparently approvingly, a dissent (usually the only opinions worth reading)

"One century ago, the first Justice Harlan admonished this Court that the Constitution “neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.” Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537, 559 (1896) (dissenting opinion)"

It then proceeds to strike down a law that purported to do just what Harlan wanted ....using, as far as I can figure, and as you said, a classification classifying gays as a protected class.

yes, I am ignoring this unintelligible pile of gibberish...which apparently has no bearing on gay marriage anyway or it would have already figured in the prop 8 or Doma cases.

By the way the underlying Colorado case talks of sexual orientation which sounds an awful lot like innateness to me.

 

[Montrovant]

Would you accept removing protections for religious belief? Or does that, somehow, not need to be innate?

The US Constitution has classified religious convictions as a basis where people cannot discriminate against you. Yet gay people are discriminating against Christians in court every week. And yes, it's the one exception to innateness in the 14th Amendment.

I'll ask again, since your cult already has dogma, evangelizing to children and swift punishment of heretics in the bag, when will you just make it official already and get your tax-exempt status? Seems like that would have been an excellent legal short cut for you instead of trying to create another special category of "non-religious minority behaviors that are exempt from local majority regulation"; which is a MUCH larger hurdle to jump. What you're asking SCOTUS to do by not just declaring yourselves a new religion (which you factually are) is to completely dismantle American law at its foundation and create "special protection" for just some minority behaviors where they cannot be touched by majority regulation: no matter how repugnant the majority finds these behaviors.

You don't need a doctorate in logic to deduce that from there, adding in "equality" any other repugnant behavioral group in the minority can sieze that precedent and run with it.

Would've been much much easier if you folks just called yourselves what you are: a religion, and had all this done with by now.

What on earth are you talking about? I'm not gay, nor a member of a cult of any kind, nor asking the Supreme Court to do anything.

Gay people are discriminating against Christians in court every week? That's a bold claim backed by, so far as I can tell, nothing at all.

Where does the 14th amendment say anything about innateness?

I would guess there are already tax-exempt gay organizations.

Again, why does religion get a pass as a non-innate characteristic deserving of protection?

Homosexuality is clearly not a religion. If you want to declare it as such, by extension, heterosexuality would also be a religion.

American law is not being dismantled. Your Chicken Little ranting does not equate to the end of US jurisprudence.

That something is repugnant to some or most does not have any bearing on whether it should be protected. Freedom is meaningless if it is only extended to that which you approve of. The simplest example is protected speech. If you only protect speech that you agree with, there is no real freedom of speech. In the same way, if you only protect people who have lifestyles you approve of, you aren't providing any real protection. If homosexuality were still illegal, this would be a different story.

 

[Silhouette]

By the way the underlying Colorado case talks of sexual orientation which sounds an awful lot like innateness to me.

Yes, they brush over the actual premise as if it wasn't germane to the conclusions. It would be like a court casually mentioning that a defendant DUI was 'born drunk' and therefore the discussion of the charges of drunk driving are moot, since "it's something that just can't be helped and this person therefore cannot be held accountable for their choice or not to conform to society's laws". Then taking it one step further, discarding all the scientific evidence that being drunk is a behavior, an action, not a static state of being and changing all driving laws based on this precedent to allow "Drunk Americans" to be able to drive since "they can't help it".

Just giving a premise a pass like that and taking laymen's words "as concrete fact" without examination of that premise's glaring red flags to the opposite, is reckless justice. In this case, the premise is fundamental to the conclusions "gays get special protections". What they're really saying is "just some deviant sexual behavioral practices get special protections...oh...and access to adopt orphans... etc..."

 

[mdk]

I wonder what makes more sense? The concise opinion of our highest court or the ramblings of a rabidly anti-gay internet random? Yeah, I am going to have to go with the courts on this one.

 

[Silhouette]

I wonder what makes more sense? The concise opinion of our highest court or the ramblings of a rabidly anti-gay internet random? Yeah, I am going to have to go with the courts on this one.

OK, so you agree with what the US Supreme Court said 56 times in Windsor 2013. Good, I'm glad you agree with them. Here's what they said 56 times in the Windsor Opinion: Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout State Authority vs Federal US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

(For montrovant, note that the quotes provided in the OP ^^ come with a link to the actual document from the US Supreme Court, page referenced & they are not "me citing myself")

 

[Montrovant]

I wonder what makes more sense? The concise opinion of our highest court or the ramblings of a rabidly anti-gay internet random? Yeah, I am going to have to go with the courts on this one.

OK, so you agree with what the US Supreme Court said 56 times in Windsor 2013. Good, I'm glad you agree with them. Here's what they said 56 times in the Windsor Opinion: Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout State Authority vs Federal US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

(For montrovant, note that the quotes provided in the OP ^^ come with a link to the actual document from the US Supreme Court, page referenced & they are not "me citing myself")

Hah! You've even mistaken who uses the phrase 'you citing yourself'.

Have you actually ever read any of the replies to your misrepresentations and lies? I don't doubt that mdk would agree with the actual rulings of Windsor, but the case doesn't actually say what you claim....

 

[Silhouette]

Have you actually ever read any of the replies to your misrepresentations and lies? I don't doubt that mdk would agree with the actual rulings of Windsor, but the case doesn't actually say what you claim....

To be honest, you people all answer in lockstep. You know how cults are. Think individually so that you all don't blend together and it will be easier to keep track of you.

The quotes in that OP are directly from Windsor 2013. The pages are even given and the link. You can read the actual document to see if the quotes have been altered. They haven't. I cut and paste.

 

[mdk]

I wonder what makes more sense? The concise opinion of our highest court or the ramblings of a rabidly anti-gay internet random? Yeah, I am going to have to go with the courts on this one.

OK, so you agree with what the US Supreme Court said 56 times in Windsor 2013. Good, I'm glad you agree with them. Here's what they said 56 times in the Windsor Opinion: Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout State Authority vs Federal US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

(For montrovant, note that the quotes provided in the OP ^^ come with a link to the actual document from the US Supreme Court, page referenced & they are not "me citing myself")

And the part you consistently ignore from the ruling is that state marriage laws are still subject to certain constitutional guarantees/protections. You can pretend it doesn't exist but the SCOTUS isn't going ignore itself in favor of your delusions.

 

[mdk]

I wonder what makes more sense? The concise opinion of our highest court or the ramblings of a rabidly anti-gay internet random? Yeah, I am going to have to go with the courts on this one.

OK, so you agree with what the US Supreme Court said 56 times in Windsor 2013. Good, I'm glad you agree with them. Here's what they said 56 times in the Windsor Opinion: Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout State Authority vs Federal US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

(For montrovant, note that the quotes provided in the OP ^^ come with a link to the actual document from the US Supreme Court, page referenced & they are not "me citing myself")

Hah! You've even mistaken who uses the phrase 'you citing yourself'.

Have you actually ever read any of the replies to your misrepresentations and lies? I don't doubt that mdk would agree with the actual rulings of Windsor, but the case doesn't actually say what you claim....

Sil knows damn well I don't agree with her bullshit. She is just coming up with excuses to make herself feel better. Anything that doesn't buttress her narrative she ignores or crafts some wild ass conspiracy.

 

[Montrovant]

Have you actually ever read any of the replies to your misrepresentations and lies? I don't doubt that mdk would agree with the actual rulings of Windsor, but the case doesn't actually say what you claim....

To be honest, you people all answer in lockstep. You know how cults are. Think individually so that you all don't blend together and it will be easier to keep track of you.

The quotes in that OP are directly from Windsor 2013. The pages are even given and the link. You can read the actual document to see if the quotes have been altered. They haven't. I cut and paste.

I didn't say the quotes were false. It's your conclusions, which you have posted here many times, that are in error.

 

[mdk]

I am actually quite concerned for Sil if the ruling doesn't go her way. She has deluded herself to the point that I am afraid she may do something drastic.

 

[Skylar]

Have you actually ever read any of the replies to your misrepresentations and lies? I don't doubt that mdk would agree with the actual rulings of Windsor, but the case doesn't actually say what you claim....

To be honest, you people all answer in lockstep. You know how cults are. Think individually so that you all don't blend together and it will be easier to keep track of you.

More accurately, we're citing the actual law. Actual precedent. The court's actual actions. So of course there's gonna be some consistency there. As none of it changes based on the poster.

The batshit you imagine is all about the poster. You're making this shit up as you go along, inventing insane conspiracies about Gallup being 'inflitrated by homosexuals', concocting wild fantasies about how the Supreme Court is being 'blackmailed by gays', and making up pseudo-legal gibberish about non-exist 'standards' that gays suddenly have to meet.

None of which actually exists.

The quotes in that OP are directly from Windsor 2013. The pages are even given and the link. You can read the actual document to see if the quotes have been altered. They haven't. I cut and paste.

Yup. And the part you keep missing....is this quote, which consistently pretend doesn't exist:

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.

Windsor v. US

The court recognizes that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees. Which you know. But really hope we don't. So the hierarchy recognized by the court is as follows:

1) Constitutional Guarantees.
2) State Marriage Laws
3) Federal Marriage Laws.

And every lower court ruling that overturned state same sex marriage bans did so on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees. Which Windsor recognized as trumping state marriage laws.

Killing your entire argument. Sigh.....again.