Let the States Decide- ALA Supreme Court Justice urges Defiance- Gay Marraige

[Skylar]

Indeed. Discrimination based on animus has no defense.

Except that it isn't animus but instead concern for state's sovereignty in their interest in incentivizing the best formative environment for its wards (children's wellbeing). Children thrive best with a mother and a father. Many situations arise where children are not raised in that best environment, like single parenthood, polygamy and kids even in rare cases being raised by wolves. But that doesn't mean a state must be forced to use children as guinea pigs by incentivizing these lesser scenarios "as married".

The courts see it differently. As Justice Scalia demonstrated elegantly:

In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by “ ‘bare . . . desire to harm’ ” couples in same-sex marriages. Supra, at 18. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.

Justice Scalia
Dissent from Windsor V. US

Where Justice Scalia said that the court's position against gay marriage bans was 'beyond mistaking' in the Windsor ruling. Explicitly cited the court's recognition of such bans being motivated by 'bare....desire to harm" and concluding that it was inevitable that the reasoning of the Windsor decision would be used to overturn state gay marriage bans.

But you know better huh?

That sentiment has absolutely nothing to do with animus. I'm sure that 99% of the population could give a crap one way or the other what the cult of LGBTers are up to. It's when they want to role-play "mom and dad" to kids in marriage (kids are the most important people in marriage and cannot vote to affect their surroundings) that people have a problem with it.

Save that 55% of the population supports gay marriage. You simply ignore any poll that contradicts you. Just like you ignore any court ruling that contradicts you. Just like you ignore any study that contradicts you.

But the SCOTUS isn't obligated to ignore any of it just because its inconvenient to your argument.

 

[Skylar]

I just told you the facts.

/fail.

You apparently don't know what the word discrimination means.

btw, 21 states protect gays against discrimination. Should the federal courts intervene and restore what you would call the right to discriminate against gays?

And 36 states have legal same sex marriage. 36 states have decided that you are full of shit.

Bullshit. That isn't 36 state legislatures approving gay marriage, that's 36 states most of which had their marriage regulations overturned by black robed tyrants. How dare you compare that to real democracy?

'tyrant'

They see the hand writing on the wall. They have a pretty good idea what's coming. And they're front loading their outrage.

 

[Syriusly]

Sexual orientation isnt a protected class. Nor does sexual orientation have rights.
/fail.

I just told you the facts.

/fail.

You apparently don't know what the word discrimination means.

btw, 21 states protect gays against discrimination. Should the federal courts intervene and restore what you would call the right to discriminate against gays?

And 36 states have legal same sex marriage. 36 states have decided that you are full of shit.

36 states didnt decide diddly squat. Almost all of them had gay marriage imposed by activiist judges striking down the will of the people expressed in votes.

'activist judges' - because of activists judges:

• Americans can marry even if they are not of the same race
• Americans can legally buy and use contraceptives
• Americans can go to desegregated schools
• Americans have the right to remain silent
• Americans have the right to an attorney.

Its all those damn activist judges fault!

Must piss you off.

 

[Syriusly]

The privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States is no longer a State's right, upon appeal to the body of laws of the general government.

You're forgetting the most important demographic in marriage, which I just pointed out somewhere else:

Then in walked the rights of children to marriage....
.

For better or worse- children have not right to 'marriage'- they don't have the right to have married parents.

If they did- the State could force their parents to marry.

So once again- just another Silly argument.

 

[Syriusly]

It is just curiosity on my part asking: If Congress has no jurisdiction - constitutionally - to define marriage because it is a state right, how can a federal judge find a state law defining marriage unconstitutional? Wouldn't the issue belong to the state's high court?
Before you say it: I am a dumb fuck in these matters.

We are a Constitutional Republic- meaning that the Constitution is the supreme law of our land.

State's define marriage individually, but all State laws are subject to the Federal Constitution, and Federal courts interpret the constitution.

That is why Federal courts can overturn State laws on marriage, gun restrictions, voting etc, if the court finds the law unconstitutional.

 

[Syriusly]

Being black changed who you could marry. Being gay doesn't. Fail.

Being gay doesn't change who you can marry?

kaz doesn't understand that the ban on interracial marriage was the same as a ban on same sex marriage:

1. with an interracial marriage ban, everyone has the right to marry someone as long as that person is of the opposite sex and the same color.

2. with a same sex marriage ban, everyone gets to marry someone of the opposite sex.


He is misapplying his own concocted logic. By his argument, banning interracial marriage should be constitutional,

because everyone still has the same rights.

Loving Vs. Virginia rejected the law because it was applied in favor of one race over another, not because of the reason you cite. So your whole argument turns to shit.

Banning same sex marriage favors one sexual orientation over another. That is discrimination.

Sexual orientation isnt a protected class. Nor does sexual orientation have rights.
/fail.

There are no protected classes in the Constitution.

 

[Syriusly]

Banning same sex marriage favors one sexual orientation over another. That is discrimination.

I know right? I can't wait until the US Supreme Court finally this year makes polygamy legal across all 50 states..

You are delusional.

 

[Syriusly]

Banning same sex marriage favors one sexual orientation over another. That is discrimination.

I know right? I can't wait until the US Supreme Court finally this year makes polygamy legal across all 50 states..

This year polygamy, next year incest.

thanks for giving us your wish list.

 

[Syriusly]

/fail.

You apparently don't know what the word discrimination means.

btw, 21 states protect gays against discrimination. Should the federal courts intervene and restore what you would call the right to discriminate against gays?

And 36 states have legal same sex marriage. 36 states have decided that you are full of shit.

Bullshit. That isn't 36 state legislatures approving gay marriage, that's 36 states most of which had their marriage regulations overturned by black robed tyrants. How dare you compare that to real democracy?

'tyrant'

They see the hand writing on the wall. They have a pretty good idea what's coming. And they're front loading their outrage.

Well I am looking forward to the usual Conservative rationalization:

Courts who overturn State anti-gun laws are wise and just.
Courts who overturn State anti-gay marriage laws are tyrants

 

[Skylar]

It is just curiosity on my part asking: If Congress has no jurisdiction - constitutionally - to define marriage because it is a state right, how can a federal judge find a state law defining marriage unconstitutional? Wouldn't the issue belong to the state's high court?
Before you say it: I am a dumb fuck in these matters.

Nope. If that were the case, the USSC could never have overturned interracial marriage bans in 1967 with the Loving decision.

The issue is rights and powers. States have powers. People have rights. The States have the power to define marriage which is supreme over the power of the Federal legislatures to define marriage. The states do NOT have the power to violate the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, nor apply their law unequally.

When the States do so, they federal judiciary has the authority to overturn such laws on the basis of the violation of individual rights. Rights which the people possess. Thus, the federal judiciary overturning marriage laws that violate individual rights isn't done so on the basis of the power of federal marriage laws.....but on the supremacy of individual rights over State laws.

As the Windsor court makes clear right here:

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 only question left is whether or not state gay marriage bans violate individual rights. If the courts find they do, they will be overturned. If not, they won't be. Though you may want to check out Justice Scalia's dissent in the WIndsor decision on which way he thinks the court is going to on state gay marriage bans.

Pay special attention to the words 'beyond mistaking' and 'inevitable'.

 

[Skylar]

Sexual orientation isnt a protected class. Nor does sexual orientation have rights.
/fail.

I just told you the facts.

/fail.

You apparently don't know what the word discrimination means.

btw, 21 states protect gays against discrimination. Should the federal courts intervene and restore what you would call the right to discriminate against gays?

And 36 states have legal same sex marriage. 36 states have decided that you are full of shit.

36 states didnt decide diddly squat. Almost all of them had gay marriage imposed by activiist judges striking down the will of the people expressed in votes.

More accurately, a majority of them (25 of 36) have had laws found to be unconstitutional overturned by the judiciary. Only 69% of the States where gay marriage is now legal had such laws overturned. 31% voted for it.

Its good to know that you consider 69% 'almost all'. I'll be using that when debating with you in the future.

 

[Seawytch]

Marriage is not a States' right to decide. It really is that simple. The proof is, that any private Act may be commuted public, by simply recording it with the appropriate public sector.

There's nothing private about the fag militia agenda. They are all about pushing it in our faces.

Well, at least you've given up all pretense of this being about 'states rights'.

Not really. I think every state should decide for themselves and have said nothing to the contrary.

If the rest of the unconstitutional DOMA were struck down, that'd be fine by me. If a state does not wish to perform a same sex marriage, fine...but a same sex marriage license issued by another state must be recognized in all 50 states.

DOMA was unconstitutional, and a showcase for family values groups asserting their agenda over the U.S. Constitution just like any Leftist group. It's a badge of shame on my side.

Not all of DOMA has been struck down yet. The part that violates the FF&C clause is still in effect...until June.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Here I thought you were a libertarian, but now I'm beginning to think you're a Focus On The Family statist.

LOL, I'm against all government marriage, Sparky.

So your standard is that I should read the law so that the law says what my personal views are. That's classic ... liberal ....

I can read, I don't read my views into every statement.

Right, you just defended a federal government power grab and you don't want government to control marriage. Maybe what you have is a medical condition that needs medication. Schizophrenia. That's the word.

I didn't "defend" anything, I AM AGAINST GOVERNMENT MARRIAGE.

That doesn't mean I can't read. I find it far scarier to ignore the Constitution and get my way on a particular issue than to get my way on a particular issue and set yet another precedent that the Constitutions says whatever we want it to. It doesn't.

This is 'RW bigot posing as a Libertarian' argument. ...I don't want gays to have the right to marry because I don't believe in government marriage..

Well, government marriage is never going away. Period. The bigot gets to deny gays their rights while hiding behind some fantasy scenario.

Except he's full of shit. He defends DOMA which was an unconstitutional power grab on the issue of marriage and gave the federal government power to decide who's married and who's not. True libertarians and conservatives believe that issue belongs to the state. He probably also supports the 1862 Morrill Anti Bigomy Act.

Incorrect.

DOMA had nothing to do with deciding who was or was not married.

DOMA recognized that same-sex couples were married, but it didn't acknowledge those marriages as entitled to equal treatment under Federal law, which is why it was struck down.

This has nothing to do with the current issue of states denying same-sex couples access to marriage in violation of the 14th Amendment; the states do not have the authority to decide who will or will not have his civil rights. Americans who live in the states are citizens of the United States first and foremost, and residents of their respective states subordinate to that, where their rights as American citizens are immune from attack by the states.

 

[Silhouette]

Not all of DOMA has been struck down yet. The part that violates the FF&C clause is still in effect...until June.

Within the individual state boundaries.. State by state.

Even Rachael Maddow on January 16th this year conceded as how it may not be a federal mandate across the 50 states. She never gives up. And probably that because in Windsor 2013, that's exactly how the FF&C question is addressed and foreshadowed.

 

[Skylar]

Not all of DOMA has been struck down yet. The part that violates the FF&C clause is still in effect...until June.

Within the individual state boundaries.. State by state.

Even Rachael Maddow on January 16th this year conceded as how it may not be a federal mandate across the 50 states. And she never gives up. And probably that because in Windsor 2013, that's exactly how the FF&C question is addressed and foreshadowed.

That's what you say. But Scalia, who opposes same sex marriage, who is part of the USSC, who knows all the participants in the decision, who was there during deliberations and all arguments....has a very different take:

In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by “ ‘bare . . . desire to harm’ ” couples in same-sex marriages. Supra, at 18. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.

Justice Scalia
Dissent on Windsor v. US

Scalia describes the court's position against same sex marriage bans as 'beyond mistaking'. He describes the court's adoption of the Windsor rulings reasoning to overturn state gay marriage bans as 'inevitable'.

But you say you know better? You may want to consider the possibility that you're self deluded, desperately wanting the courts to rule in a manner consistent with your beliefs. And lying to yourself about the Windsor ruling.

 

[Silhouette]

As to the lingering problem Maddow mentioned that is the already "married" couples with, I guess legitimate licenses even though the interim law was that state's get to decide and always have... Perhaps the Court will punt that issue back to each individual state to vote on or legislate a fix for. However, that won't supersede any language that ultimately declares that the "yes or no" question is and always was up to each state's electorate.

States would be well advised in-advance to have some type of ballot measure that says "this law will preserve those marriages but permit none further". If appealed, the Supreme Court would simply cite its 2015 Decision reiterating that it is up to the individual states.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

There's nothing private about the fag militia agenda. They are all about pushing it in our faces.

Well, at least you've given up all pretense of this being about 'states rights'.

Not really. I think every state should decide for themselves and have said nothing to the contrary.

If the rest of the unconstitutional DOMA were struck down, that'd be fine by me. If a state does not wish to perform a same sex marriage, fine...but a same sex marriage license issued by another state must be recognized in all 50 states.

DOMA was unconstitutional, and a showcase for family values groups asserting their agenda over the U.S. Constitution just like any Leftist group. It's a badge of shame on my side.

Not all of DOMA has been struck down yet. The part that violates the FF&C clause is still in effect...until June.

The whole thing needs to go, and Family Values groups need to stop pushing unconstitutional agendas and then calling themselves patriotic for it.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

LOL, I'm against all government marriage, Sparky.

So your standard is that I should read the law so that the law says what my personal views are. That's classic ... liberal ....

I can read, I don't read my views into every statement.

Right, you just defended a federal government power grab and you don't want government to control marriage. Maybe what you have is a medical condition that needs medication. Schizophrenia. That's the word.

I didn't "defend" anything, I AM AGAINST GOVERNMENT MARRIAGE.

That doesn't mean I can't read. I find it far scarier to ignore the Constitution and get my way on a particular issue than to get my way on a particular issue and set yet another precedent that the Constitutions says whatever we want it to. It doesn't.

This is 'RW bigot posing as a Libertarian' argument. ...I don't want gays to have the right to marry because I don't believe in government marriage..

Well, government marriage is never going away. Period. The bigot gets to deny gays their rights while hiding behind some fantasy scenario.

Except he's full of shit. He defends DOMA which was an unconstitutional power grab on the issue of marriage and gave the federal government power to decide who's married and who's not. True libertarians and conservatives believe that issue belongs to the state. He probably also supports the 1862 Morrill Anti Bigomy Act.

Incorrect.

DOMA had nothing to do with deciding who was or was not married.

DOMA recognized that same-sex couples were married, but it didn't acknowledge those marriages as entitled to equal treatment under Federal law, which is why it was struck down.

This has nothing to do with the current issue of states denying same-sex couples access to marriage in violation of the 14th Amendment; the states do not have the authority to decide who will or will not have his civil rights. Americans who live in the states are citizens of the United States first and foremost, and residents of their respective states subordinate to that, where their rights as American citizens are immune from attack by the states.

No, actually it doesn't at all recognize gays as being married. This is the point. It decides whose married and whose not based on a Jerry Falwell Family Values criteria.

 

[Skylar]

As to the lingering problem Maddow mentioned that is the already "married" couples with, I guess legitimate licenses even though the interim law was that state's get to decide and always have...

Says you. And as Scalia demonstrated earlier, you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

The Federal judiciary has said otherwise. Every federal ruling overturning gay marriage bans has been on the basis that such bans violate constitutional guarantees. And no state has the authority to create laws that violate constitutional guarantees. All state marriage laws are subject to such guarantees as the Windsor ruling makes ludicriously clear:

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

You omit any mention of constitutional guarantees when discussing the Windsor decision. And bizarrely pretend that no such constitutional guarantees even exist. Despite the fact that every challenge to same sex marriage bans that are being heard by the USSC this year are on the basis of the violation of such guarantees.

And you ignore it all. Your denial and willful ignorance won't change a single ruling.

Perhaps the Court will punt that issue back to each individual state to vote on or legislate a fix for. However, that won't supersede any language that ultimately declares that the "yes or no" question is and always was up to each state's electorate.

Probably not. As the IRS has already accepted those marriages as federally valid. Meaning that all married same sex couples that filed jointly in a State where their marriages would suddenly be rendered invalid would have to refile all of their taxes during the years that their marriage licenses were in effect. Same for state taxes.

A ruling affirming same sex marriage would essentially maintain the status quo in the vast majority of the country. A ruling against same sex marriage would create legal chaos across the country, within most states, and within the federal tax law. For that reason alone, I suspect that many conservative justices that would ordinarily rule against gay marriage will affirm it.

I don't think this is even going to be close. I think a 6 to 3 ruling is the most likely. With a 7 to 2 ruling being plausible, though improbable.

States would be well advised in-advance to have some type of ballot measure that says "this law will preserve those marriages but permit none further". If appealed, the Supreme Court would simply cite its 2015 Decision reiterating that it is up to the individual states.

If you look at the preparations that these States are making, its exactly opposite of what you're suggesting. They're already preparing versions of their laws that allow for same sex marriage. As they see what's coming. As does Scalia.

You seem to be the only person who remains pristinely void of a clue.

 

[danielpalos]

As to the lingering problem Maddow mentioned that is the already "married" couples with, I guess legitimate licenses even though the interim law was that state's get to decide and always have... Perhaps the Court will punt that issue back to each individual state to vote on or legislate a fix for. However, that won't supersede any language that ultimately declares that the "yes or no" question is and always was up to each state's electorate.

States would be well advised in-advance to have some type of ballot measure that says "this law will preserve those marriages but permit none further". If appealed, the Supreme Court would simply cite its 2015 Decision reiterating that it is up to the individual states.

That ruling cannot be correct. Marriage is a purely private Act and natural right. It is Only commuted Public, for full faith and credit purposes. There can be no collusion or conspiracy to subvert our supreme law of the land, merely for sake of the subjective value of Individual morals.