Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Silhouette, Jan 25, 2015.

?

I've read the 56 references in Windsor to states' power in redefining marriage & I believe...

  1. SCOTUS will have marriage equality for all mandated federally after this year's Hearing.

    7 vote(s)
    63.6%
  2. SCOTUS will have marriage equality for just same-sex marriage mandated federally after this year.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. SCOTUS will simply reaffirm Windsor & keep the regulation of which lifestyles may marry to states.

    4 vote(s)
    36.4%
  1. Silhouette
    Offline

    Silhouette Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    20,751
    Thanks Received:
    1,417
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +6,502
    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)
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. Skylar
    Offline

    Skylar Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2014
    Messages:
    27,402
    Thanks Received:
    3,894
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +10,211
    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.

    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.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. Silhouette
    Offline

    Silhouette Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    20,751
    Thanks Received:
    1,417
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +6,502
    56 vs 1 Bro...

    Vote in the poll how you believe it will shake out. :popcorn:
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. TheOldSchool
    Offline

    TheOldSchool Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Messages:
    55,194
    Thanks Received:
    9,172
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    last stop for sanity before reaching the south
    Ratings:
    +36,735
    [​IMG]
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  5. Skylar
    Offline

    Skylar Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2014
    Messages:
    27,402
    Thanks Received:
    3,894
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +10,211
    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:

    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.
     
  6. WorldWatcher
    Offline

    WorldWatcher Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    7,143
    Thanks Received:
    1,312
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    VA
    Ratings:
    +2,000
    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


    >>>>
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. Skylar
    Offline

    Skylar Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2014
    Messages:
    27,402
    Thanks Received:
    3,894
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +10,211
    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.
     
  8. TheOldSchool
    Offline

    TheOldSchool Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Messages:
    55,194
    Thanks Received:
    9,172
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    last stop for sanity before reaching the south
    Ratings:
    +36,735
    Silhouette why aren't you showcasing your collection of gay photography in this thread?
     
  9. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    42,686
    Thanks Received:
    9,253
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +25,532
    This doesn't warrant yet another thread.

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

    mdk Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    27,903
    Thanks Received:
    7,478
    Trophy Points:
    1,080
    Ratings:
    +44,146
    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.
     

Share This Page