Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

[Silhouette]

The lastest and Highest Opinion on the merits (the only one to date upon the merits) of the specific question of law of legitimacy of same-sex marriage by where its legitimacy is derived from is Windsor 2013. It found that that question was the "unquestioned authority" of the separate states.

Below is a compilation directly quoted from Windsor 2013 of the type and number of references to the power of defining marriage as to this specific question falling under the separate states' control. That concept of this as a state's right is reaffirmed at my count 56 times in 26 pages of the Opinion found here: United States v. Windsor

Given this is the case, vote on the poll above to weigh if you think the Court will overturn this essence of how it determined to find on behalf of E. Windsor in 2013.

Here are the references from Windsor:

**********
Page 1: "In 1996, as some States were beginning to consider the concept of same-sex marriage." (1)

Page 2: "..before any State had acted to permit it"... "Section 2, which has not been challenged here, allows States to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed under the laws of other States"..."does not by its terms forbid States from enacting laws permitting same-sex marriages or civil unions"... (3)

Page 13: "When at first Windsor and Spyer longed to marry, neither New York nor any other State granted them that right."..."Accordingly some States.." (2)

Page 14: "The limitation of lawful marriage to heterosexual couples, which for centuries had been deemed both necessary and fundamental, came to be seen in New York and certain other States as an unjust exclusion." ...."New York came to acknowledge the urgency of this issue for same-sex couples"..."so New York recognized same-sex marriages performed elsewhere; and then it later amended its own marriage laws to permit same-sex marriage."..."New York, in common with, as of this writing, 11 other States and the District of Columbia, decided that same-sex couples should have the right to marry"..."After a statewide deliberative process that enabled its citizens to discuss and weigh arguments for and against same-sex marriage, New York acted.."..."Against this background of lawful same-sex marriage in some States.".."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." (7)

Page 16: "persons that the laws of New York, and of 11 other States, have sought to protect.."..."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."...""regulation of domestic relations" is "an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States." (3)

Page 17: "The recognition of civil marriages is central to state domestic relations law applicable to its residents and citizens.."..."Each state as a sovereign has a rightful and legitimate concern in the marital status of persons domiciled within its borders.."..."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."...""[T]he states,at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, possessed full power over the subject of marriage and divorce.."..."the Constitution delegated no authority to the Government of the United States on the subject of marriage and divorce."..."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"..."the Federal Government, through our history, has deferred to state-law policy decisions with respect to domestic relations.."..."under the Copyright Act "requires a reference to the law of the State which created those legal relationships" because "there is no federal law of domestic relations."...."In order to respect this principle, 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." (9)

Page 18: "exclusive primacy . . . of the States in the regulation of domestic relations."..."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."..."Marriage laws vary in some respects from State to State.."..."these rules are in every event consistent within each State."..."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."..."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.."...." (7)

Page 19: "this history and tradition of reliance on state law to define marriage.."...."The Federal Government uses this state-defined class.."..."In acting first to recognize and then to allow same-sex marriages, New York was responding "to the initiative of those who [sought] a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times."..."These actions were without doubt a proper exercise of its sovereign authority within our federal system, all in the way that the Framers of the Constitution intended."..."The dynamics of state government in the federal system are to allow the formation of consensus respecting the way the members of a discrete community treat each other in their daily contact and constant interaction with each other."..."The States’ interest in defining and regulating the marital relation.." (6)

Page 20: "For same-sex couples who wished to be married, the State acted to give their lawful conduct a lawful status."...."a relationship deemed by the State.."...."It reflects both the community’s considered perspective on the historical roots of the institution of marriage and its evolving understanding of the meaning of equality."...."The responsibility of the States for the regulation of domestic relations is an important indicator of the substantial societal impact the State’s classifications have in the daily lives and customs of its people."..."DOMA’s unusual deviation from the usual tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage here.." (5)

Page 21: "same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States.."...."same-sex marriages, a dignity conferred by the States in the exercise of their sovereign power, was more than an incidental effect of the federal statute. It was its essence.."...."the congressional purpose to influence or interfere with state sovereign choices about who may be married. As the title and dynamics of the bill indicate, its purpose isto discourage enactment of state same-sex marriage laws and to restrict the freedom and choice of couples married under those laws if they are enacted." (3)

Page 22: "The congressional goal was "to put a thumb on the scales and influence a state’s decision as to how to shape its own marriage laws."..."New York adopted a law to permit same-sex marriage.."...."DOMA frustrates that objective through a system-wide enactment with no identified connection to any particular area of federal law."..."DOMA’s principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages.."...."DOMA contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State."...."diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect."..."public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages.." (7)

Page 23: "whose relationship the State has sought to dignify." (1)

Page 25: "those persons who are joined in same-sex marriages made lawful by the State."...."persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition.."...."a status the State finds to be dignified and proper"..." (3)

Page 26: "those whom the State, by its marriage laws.." (1)

 

[Skylar]

The lastest and Highest Opinion on the merits (the only one to date upon the merits) of the specific question of law of legitimacy of same-sex marriage by where its legitimacy is derived from is Windsor 2013. It found that that question was the "unquestioned authority" of the separate states.

You're hopelessly confused as to what the specific legal question that the Windsor court was answering. You mistakenly believe that it was about the constitutionality of gay marriage bans. It isn't. Gay marriage bans are never mentioned once in the entire Windsor ruling.

Instead, the Windsor ruling answers if Federal Marriage laws can deny recognition of a marriage that has been recognized by the State. And the answer was no, they couldn't. That it was a 5th amendment violation, as state marriage laws trump federal marriage laws.

That's it.

The Windsor court never ruled on the constitutionality of gay marriage bans or even mentioned them. Instead finding that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees, even citing as an example a case called "Loving V. Virginia'' in which the Supreme Court overturned State marriage laws for violating constitutional guarantees.

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 intentionally omitted any mention of these guarantees, pretending that no such constitutional guarantees exist. Which is pointless. As every single challenge to the 6th circuit court's affirmation of gay marriage bans are on the basis that such bans violate constitutional guarantees. Including all 4 that the USSC has agreed to hear in April.

You can choose to ignore these constitutional guarantees. But you can't make the SCOTUS ignore them.

 

[Silhouette]

56 vs 1 Bro...

Vote in the poll how you believe it will shake out.

 

[TheOldSchool]

 

[Skylar]

56 vs 1 Bro...

Vote in the poll how you believe it will shake out.

56 references to State marriage laws being supreme over federal marriage laws.

0 references of state marriage laws being supreme over the federal judiciary or constitutional guarantees.

With the Windsor ruling explicitly affirming that state marriage laws are subject to those constitutional guarantees and even using as an example the Loving v. Virginia case in which the SCOTUS overturned State marriage laws for violating those guarantees:

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 can ignore these constitutional guarantees if you'd like. The SCOTUS won't. As every challenge to gay marriage bans that the SCOTUS agreed to hear t his year....are on the basis of the violation of these same guarantees.

Every single one. Pretty impressive.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The lastest and Highest Opinion on the merits (the only one to date upon the merits) of the specific question of law of legitimacy of same-sex marriage by where its legitimacy is derived from is Windsor 2013.

Windsor doesn't do what you say it does, so the basic meaning your post is false, something that has been pointed out to you repeatedly.

From someone that knows much more about the law than you Sil:

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

Chief Justice C.J. Roberts
United States v. Windsor
12-307 6j37.pdf​

>>>>

 

[Skylar]

The lastest and Highest Opinion on the merits (the only one to date upon the merits) of the specific question of law of legitimacy of same-sex marriage by where its legitimacy is derived from is Windsor 2013.

Windsor doesn't do what you say it does, so the basic meaning your post is false, something that has been pointed out to you repeatedly.

From someone that knows much more about the law than you Sil:

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

Chief Justice C.J. Roberts
United States v. Windsor
12-307 6j37.pdf​

>>>>

Silo already knows this. His entire basis of reasoning is in ignoring anything from the any USSC justice on the matter that doesn't affirm what he wants to believe.

His problem is that he can't make anyone else ignore the USSC on the matter. Including the USSC.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Silhouette why aren't you showcasing your collection of gay photography in this thread?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This doesn't warrant yet another thread.

The OP's inane and ridiculous premise has been proven wrong time and again.

 

[mdk]

Though correct, you folks are wasting your time because Sil will ignore every fact that runs contrary to her anti-gay narrtive. Sil has been corrected on numerous occsains concerning this nonsense but like a dog with bone won't let go.

 

[Skylar]

Though correct, you folks are wasting your time because Sil will ignore every fact that runs contrary to her anti-gay narrtive. Sil has been corrected on numerous occsains concerning this nonsense but like a dog with bone won't let go.

Oh, my posts aren't for Silo. He's wildly irrational on this issue. I've actually seen him ignore every national poll on gay marriage support in favor of a USMB straw poll like this one that didn't even ask about the legality of gay marriage. You can't teach that level of batshit.

I'm offering accurate information for anyone who might read this thread. As Silo's simply a terrible source, omitting anything that is contrary to his argument. Even if what he's ignoring is his own source.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Though correct, you folks are wasting your time because Sil will ignore every fact that runs contrary to her anti-gay narrtive. Sil has been corrected on numerous occsains concerning this nonsense but like a dog with bone won't let go.

Some of us have come to understand this would be a selfie of Sil...

I just post now for others who may not be familiar with him/her.


>>>>

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Meanwhile the public school systems are teaching 9 year-old boys how to get buggered. I think the only thing that'll put an end to this dangerous mental illness, is going to be a lot of blood running in American gutters. On this issue, Isil and the Muslim world have it 100% correct. What's happening in America today, with belligerent homosexuals bludgeoning their "rights" regarding pedophilia, is no different than what was happening in Nazi Germany in the mid-1930's. It got so bad there, with the stream of male children being dragged in and out of Germany's SA barracks complexes, daily, igniting hundreds of complaints from civilians to the police, that Himmler and Hitler finally instituted The Night of the Long Knives in 1934, wherein the three million-man SA was disbanded and it's major cadre executed. Hitler, history's most infamous homosexual, had no choice. It was a matter of public image.

Instead of being browbeaten by onerous queers, America needs to read some empirical history regarding the natural evolution of homosexual pedophilia, pedastry, and fascism. A great primer is British historian Peter Padfield's biography of Heinrich Himmler. Another is Bremen University history professor Lothar Machtan's The Hidden Hitler, in which Hitler's homosexual degeneracy is proven to a T. And of course there's the magnum opus, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by NY Times Berlin bureau chief, William L. Shirer, in which the great journalist makes the observation that Hitler was friendlier toward homosexuality than any dictator since the Romans.

“Exterminate all homosexuals and fascism will vanish.”--Maxim Gorky, Stalin's chief propagandist in Pravda, 1933, shortly after Hitler's election.

 

[Skylar]

Meanwhile the public school systems are teaching 9 year-old boys how to get buggered.

Nope.

"It is not and never was part of the student sexual education curriculum," CPS spokesman Bill McCaffrey wrote. "It was mistakenly downloaded and included in the parent presentation, and we agree with parents it is not appropriate for elementary school students."

Fifth-Grade Sex Ed Plan Horrifies Chicago Parents Who Say It s Obscene - University Village - DNAinfo.com Chicago

 

[mdk]

Though correct, you folks are wasting your time because Sil will ignore every fact that runs contrary to her anti-gay narrtive. Sil has been corrected on numerous occsains concerning this nonsense but like a dog with bone won't let go.

Oh, my posts aren't for Silo. He's wildly irrational on this issue. I've actually seen him ignore every national poll on gay marriage support in favor of a USMB straw poll like this one that didn't even ask about the legality of gay marriage. You can't teach that level of batshit.

I'm offering accurate information for anyone who might read this thread. As Silo's simply a terrible source, omitting anything that is contrary to his argument. Even if what he's ignoring is his own source.

Sil is hoping that people are ignorant of the actual findings in Windsor and just take her word for it on the matter. She has ablsouelty no credibility concerning this issue. Claiming a USMB poll, lines at a fast food joint, and "likes" on Facebook are the true gauge of the public's opinion on gay marriage only further accents that point. Sil's new tact is to claim Prince's Trust shows gays are poor parents despite the fact that the study never studies or even mentions gay parents. It is entirely imagined, just like her "findings" in Windsor.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Meanwhile the public school systems are teaching 9 year-old boys how to get buggered.

Nope.

"It is not and never was part of the student sexual education curriculum," CPS spokesman Bill McCaffrey wrote. "It was mistakenly downloaded and included in the parent presentation, and we agree with parents it is not appropriate for elementary school students."

Fifth-Grade Sex Ed Plan Horrifies Chicago Parents Who Say It s Obscene - University Village - DNAinfo.com Chicago

Deny, deny, deny, lie, lie, lie.

 

[Skylar]

Meanwhile the public school systems are teaching 9 year-old boys how to get buggered.

Nope.

"It is not and never was part of the student sexual education curriculum," CPS spokesman Bill McCaffrey wrote. "It was mistakenly downloaded and included in the parent presentation, and we agree with parents it is not appropriate for elementary school students."

Fifth-Grade Sex Ed Plan Horrifies Chicago Parents Who Say It s Obscene - University Village - DNAinfo.com Chicago

Deny, deny, deny, lie, lie, lie.

I'm quoting the actual source. You've cited yourself.

When you have more than you, talk to me.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

How many "married" male queers are adopting female children? Now that'd be an interesting statistic to see...if you could ever get the truth. Take the child equation out of gay "marriage", and the issue would die as an issue overnight.

 

[Skylar]

How many "married" male queers are adopting female children? Now that'd be an interesting statistic to see...if you could ever get the truth. Take the child equation out of gay "marriage", and the issue would die as an issue overnight.

Wow. You just straight up abandoned your claims about 'the public school systems are teaching 9 year-old boys how to get buggered.'

So much for that claim.

How many "married" male queers are adopting female children? Now that'd be an interesting statistic to see...if you could ever get the truth. Take the child equation out of gay "marriage", and the issue would die as an issue overnight.

And why would children being taken out of the equation make the gay marriage issue die overnight?

 

[Silhouette]

Silhouette why aren't you showcasing your collection of gay photography in this thread?

Because sexually-explicit parades in front of kids on public streets isn't really germane to this particular topic. But tempt me and I may.