Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

[Skylar]

"Marriage Equality"

Another comical leftist phraseiological construct we are supposed to embrace....NOT

Ignore it as you wish. Your acceptance or denial of the term will likely have no impact on the outcome of the court's ruling on the topic either way.

 

[Syriusly]

"Marriage Equality"

Another comical leftist phraseiological construct we are supposed to embrace....NOT

Ignore it as you wish. Your acceptance or denial of the term will likely have no impact on the outcome of the court's ruling on the topic either way.

There are some people that really object to the concept of 'equal treatment'

I really don't get it.

 

[Silhouette]

There are some people that really object to the concept of 'equal treatment'

I really don't get it.

Sure you do. It is just politically expedient of you to pretend you don't understand.

For instance, you understand that blind people will not enjoy the privelege of driving. They don't fit the basic mechanics "of a driver" for the good of the majority.

Likewise, two gay people will not enjoy the state-encouraged privelege (marriage) of being "as two parents/the best formative environment' to a child. They don't fit the basic mechanics "of father & mother" for the good of the majority.

You get it. You know people will be hurt by pretending not to get it. But children come first. SCOTUS reiterated 56 times in Windsor that this is a state's discreet community's issue for a reason. My belief is that reason is the formative environment for kids is not a social lab experiment using kids as guinea pigs, dictated by five judges upon the 100s of millions.

 

[bendog]

Jesus Christos just kill this fail thread. LOL

 

[Skylar]

Likewise, two gay people will not enjoy the state-encouraged privelege (marriage) of being "as two parents/the best formative environment' to a child. They don't fit the basic mechanics "of father & mother" for the good of the majority.

The SCOTUS has long since recognized marriage as a right. You call it a priveledge, citing yourself.

And you're nobody.

You get it. You know people will be hurt by pretending not to get it. But children come first.

Then you may want to take a listen to what the USSC found regarding harm to children when their parents are denied access to marriage:

And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives...

....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.

Windsor V. US

A finding that is going to be far more relevant to the SCOTUS ruling in June on if gay marriage bans violate constitutional guarantees than your personal opinion will.

SCOTUS reiterated 56 times in Windsor that this is a state's discreet community's issue for a reason.

The 56 'reiterations' was that State marriage law trumped Federal marriage law. Remember, Windsor was about DOMA, and whether the Federal government could deny recognition for a marriage that the State had already recognized.

The Windsor court found that no, the Federal government couldn't do this. And that on issues of marriage State law trumps Federal law.

That's it.

The Windsor court never ruled that gay marriage bans were constitutional or even mentioned gay marriage bans. Instead, they found that the State marriage laws were subject to 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

And every single challenge to gay marriage bans that the SCOTUS is hearing in April are based on the violation of those constitutional guarantees.

My belief is that reason is the formative environment for kids is not a social lab experiment dictated by five judges upon the 100s of millions.

Your belief is based on willful ignorance. As there are more than a dozen studies from around the world that confirm that children of same sex parents are as healthy as their hetero parent raised counterparts.

You simply ignore any study that confirms these findings. From any source. With any sample size. Using any methodology.

And your willful ignorance has no relevance to any SCOTUS ruling. Nor ever will.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Likewise, two gay people will not enjoy the state-encouraged privelege (marriage) of being "as two parents/the best formative environment' to a child. They don't fit the basic mechanics "of father & mother" for the good of the majority.

Well that's false

There are about 19 states that have SSCM based on State action (State Ballot, State Legislature, or State Judiciary) and those won't be changed if the SCOTUS were to allow State bans to remain in place. So ya they do enjoy the same privilege as different sex couples.

Your "will not" is plainly false.


>>>>

 

[Syriusly]

There are some people that really object to the concept of 'equal treatment'

I really don't get it.

Sure you do. It is just politically expedient of you to pretend you don't understand.

For instance, you understand that blind people will not enjoy the privelege of driving. They don't fit the basic mechanics "of a driver" for the good of the majority.

Likewise, two gay people will not enjoy the state-encouraged privelege (marriage).

Oh I get that you are just delusional.

Driving is a privilege.
Marriage is a right.

Glad to clear that up for you.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Group marriage , its a right !!!!

All that matters is the love !!!! Lol

 

[danielpalos]

...that's really weird. Then why would SCOTUS have reiterated 56 times in 26 pages that defining marriage's structure was the "unquestioned authority" of the sovereign states?

With every of those '56' referencing finding that State marriage law trumped federal marriage law. But that's not the question that the USSC is addressing in this years ruling on same sex marriage, is it?

These are the questions the Supreme Court will be asking and addressing:

1. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
2. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

This is.

And on the issue of constitutional guarantees, like those protected in the 14th amendment, the WIndsor ruling was quite clear that State marriage laws were subject to them.

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.

And its these constitutional guarantees that are the basis of every challenge to same sex marriage bans being heard by the USSC this year.

Yet oddly....you ignore such constitutional guarantees and omit any mention of them in any of your citations of Windsor. Surely you realize that just because you ignore those constitutional guarantees doesn't mean the court can't see them.

Right?

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of our supreme law of the land, as declared and expressed, in Article 4, Section 2.

Article 4 section 2 is ambiguous.

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

The court has interpretted this to mean that a state may not favor the citizens of its state over the citizens of another. Texas couldn't impose a California tax on residents of California who moved to Texas to become reisdents. Those new Texas citizens had to be treated the same as any other Texas citizen.

While that finding may have some relevance to married same sex couples moving into a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage, it would have no applicability to marriages performed within a state.

Which is one of the big questions facing the court.

What you call an appeal to ignorance is simply a lack of applicable legal precedent to be relevant to the big questions that the court faces this year with gay marriage.

Article 4, Section 2 is not ambiguous at all; it is only the appeals to ignorance of it that are ambiguous, since it was ratified by the several States and therefore, ceded as a sovereign State power.

The disparate and wildly contradictory interpretations of its meaning throughout the history of our nation says otherwise. You can pretend that everyone has the same interpretation as you do if you'd like. But it simply isn't true.

And in terms of legal applicability, the interpretation of the court is authoritative. That you disagree with the court is legally irrelevant. As your personal opinion is not the basis by which we determine legal definitions or interpret the constitution. We use the judgement of the legislatures and the judiciary.

Every, other decision was an appeal to ignorance of the law; probably for political reasons having nothing to do with a moral of Faith in the execution of our own laws. Article 4,Section 2 has Never been Ambiguous, at all. And, our Ninth and Tenth Amendments gainsay your contention.

 

[Skylar]

With every of those '56' referencing finding that State marriage law trumped federal marriage law. But that's not the question that the USSC is addressing in this years ruling on same sex marriage, is it?

This is.

And on the issue of constitutional guarantees, like those protected in the 14th amendment, the WIndsor ruling was quite clear that State marriage laws were subject to them.

And its these constitutional guarantees that are the basis of every challenge to same sex marriage bans being heard by the USSC this year.

Yet oddly....you ignore such constitutional guarantees and omit any mention of them in any of your citations of Windsor. Surely you realize that just because you ignore those constitutional guarantees doesn't mean the court can't see them.

Right?

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of our supreme law of the land, as declared and expressed, in Article 4, Section 2.

Article 4 section 2 is ambiguous.

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

The court has interpretted this to mean that a state may not favor the citizens of its state over the citizens of another. Texas couldn't impose a California tax on residents of California who moved to Texas to become reisdents. Those new Texas citizens had to be treated the same as any other Texas citizen.

While that finding may have some relevance to married same sex couples moving into a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage, it would have no applicability to marriages performed within a state.

Which is one of the big questions facing the court.

What you call an appeal to ignorance is simply a lack of applicable legal precedent to be relevant to the big questions that the court faces this year with gay marriage.

Article 4, Section 2 is not ambiguous at all; it is only the appeals to ignorance of it that are ambiguous, since it was ratified by the several States and therefore, ceded as a sovereign State power.

The disparate and wildly contradictory interpretations of its meaning throughout the history of our nation says otherwise. You can pretend that everyone has the same interpretation as you do if you'd like. But it simply isn't true.

And in terms of legal applicability, the interpretation of the court is authoritative. That you disagree with the court is legally irrelevant. As your personal opinion is not the basis by which we determine legal definitions or interpret the constitution. We use the judgement of the legislatures and the judiciary.

Every, other decision was an appeal to ignorance of the law;

Says you. Citing yourself. You've insisted that there can only be one possible interpretation of that passage of the constitution: yours. And that all other interpretations (and there are so many) are all appeals to ignorance.

Um, no. That's simply disagreement. Your perspective is only valid if you and you alone are the sole and authoritative arbiter of the constitution.

And you're not.

probably for political reasons having nothing to do with a moral of Faith in the execution of our own laws. Article 4,Section 2 has Never been Ambiguous, at all. And, our Ninth and Tenth Amendments gainsay your contention.

And when you can't back your claims factually, you invent a fact free conspiracy. Backed by nothing.

Article 4 section 2 is quite ambiguous. It doesn't define which privileges its referring to, it doesn't explain its meaning, its not even clear it it means that any right recognized in one state must be recognized in all. If so, then state sovereignty goes right out the window. And that's something the founders clearly didn't support.

If you wish to make your case for your position, show us your evidence. Show us say, precedent in law. Or words from the founders. Or historical context.

But you citing you is meaningless. As you don't define anything.

 

[Silhouette]

Jesus Christos just kill this fail thread. LOL

Translation: "I don't want anyone finding out that SCOTUS already reiterated 56 times in Windsor that the choice of gay marriage is actually up to the individual states. I'm petrified that even while I'm telling everyone "a majority of Americans now support gay marriage"...if it's left up to a vote state by state it will be defeated soundly"

 

[bendog]

No it means your OP was factually bullshite, so anything commenting upon it will not improve the original premise.

 

[Silhouette]

..Article 4 section 2 is quite ambiguous. It doesn't define which privileges its referring to, it doesn't explain its meaning, its not even clear it it means that any right recognized in one state must be recognized in all. If so, then state sovereignty goes right out the window. And that's something the founders clearly didn't support....

So....what you're saying is that Article 4 Section 2 is an extremely legally vague concept, open to wide interpretation and discretion of the US Supreme Court...while also admitting that the founding fathers were adamant about states' sovereignty....

Then what you've just said is what Windsor also said, which is "since the priveleges application is so wide and vague, the Court finds it must weigh more heavily upon that which is not vague, but is very specific and essential to the USA's intended inception: unquestioned power and authority of the states unless under extreme and compelling and obvious exceptions"....

Lifestyles that shift hither and yon, to and fro (think: Anne Heche) who have full power of their vote (unlike children, who cannot affect the marriage/home/formative environment by their vote) and who are currently having their way legally in any direction they seem to wish...from a naziesque program of alternating between levelling threats and blackmail to threatening suicide if they don't get their way, do not qualify as "compelling and obvious exceptions" to the "unquestioned authority" of the Governed within the separate states.

 

[Skylar]

Jesus Christos just kill this fail thread. LOL

Translation: "I don't want anyone finding out that SCOTUS already reiterated 56 times in Windsor that the choice of gay marriage is actually up to the individual states.

Do you honestly think Scalia doesn't know about the Windsor ruling? And yet he's concluded that its inevitable that the SCOTUS will overturn gay marriage bans using the exact same reasoning of Windsor.

"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
Discenting from Windsor v. US decision

UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR LII Legal Information Institute

He said that the court's position against gay marriage bans was 'beyond mistaking' and that that the court applying the logic of Windsor to overturn state laws banning gay marriage was 'inevitable'. The exact opposite of your claims.

But you know better, huh?

Your 'secret' that you think we 'don't want anyone to know about' is merely another of your profound, almost comic misunderstandings of the Windsor ruling. As the Windsor ruling explicitly finds that State marriage laws are subject to 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

With every challenge to gay marriage bans being heard by the court this year being on the basis that they violate constitutional guarantees.

As usual, you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

 

[Skylar]

..Article 4 section 2 is quite ambiguous. It doesn't define which privileges its referring to, it doesn't explain its meaning, its not even clear it it means that any right recognized in one state must be recognized in all. If so, then state sovereignty goes right out the window. And that's something the founders clearly didn't support....

So....what you're saying is that Article 4 Section 2 is an extremely legally vague concept, open to wide interpretation and discretion of the US Supreme Court...while also admitting that the founding fathers were adamant about states' sovereignty....

Article 4 section 2 isn't any part of the specific legal questions being addressed by the Windsor ruling or the challenges to same sex marriage bans being heard by the court this year. That would be the 5th amendment and 14th amendment respectively.

Making any discussion of Article 4, Section 2 irrelevant to both rulings.

Then what you've just said is what Windsor also said, which is "since the priveleges application is so wide and vague, the Court finds it must weigh more heavily upon that which is not vague, but is very specific and essential to the USA's intended inception: unquestioned power and authority of the states unless under extreme and compelling and obvious exceptions"....

Sil....we've been through this. The specific legal question that the Windsor ruling addressed was if the DOMA under Federal law could deny recognition of a marriage that a state had recognized. The answer was no, that State marriage laws were supreme over federal marriage laws.

The Windor court didn't rule on the constitutionality of state gay marriage bans, nor ever mention them. You hallucinated all of it. Justice Roberts contradicts your absurd interpretation of the Windsor ruling:

The Court does not have before it, and the logic of its opinion doesnot decide, the distinct question whether the States, in the exercise of their “historic and essential authority to define the marital relation,” ante, at18, may continue to utilize the traditional definition of marriage.

Chief Justice Roberts
Dissenting in Windsor v. US
UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR LII Legal Information Institute

Justice Scalia contradicts your absurd interpretation of Windsor:

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

Dissenting in Windsor v. US
UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR LII Legal Information Institute

The Windsor ruling contradicts your absurd interpretation of Windsor:

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

Explicitly finding that the States were subject to constitutional guarantees in their marriage laws. With every single challenge to state same sex marriage bans being made on the basis of the violation of these same constitutional guarantees.

Not the applicability of Federal Law.

Again, Silo....and I can't stress this point enough. But you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

 

[Silhouette]

Do you honestly think Scalia doesn't know about the Windsor ruling? And yet he's concluded that its inevitable that the SCOTUS will overturn gay marriage bans using the exact same reasoning of Windsor.

"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
Discenting from Windsor v. US decision

UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR LII Legal Information Institute

Was Scalia even familiar with the Prince's Trust study at the time he wrote that? As your group is fond of saying "opinions about gay marraige are changing rapidly"...

Don't always assume it's a one-way street..


FROM THE PRINCE'S TRUST STUDY: http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf
Page 8 (the left side on the green background)

In addition to indexing the happiness and wellbeing of young people, the report explores some significant demographic differences between young people. They include a comparison between those not in education employment or training with their peers...those without a positive role model of their gender in their lives (women without a positive female role model and men without a positive male role model) and their peers...those with fewer than five GCSEs graded A* to C (or equivalent) with their peers... Respondents are asked how happy and confident they are in different areas of their life. The responses are converted to a numerical scale, resulting in a number out of 100-- with 100 representing entirely happy or confident and zero being not at all happy or confident.

Page 10 (The bold largest heading above the material that followed it)

Young people without a role model of the same gender in their lives

The UK periodical's summation of that study: Teens without parent role model are 67 per cent less likely to get a job Daily Mail Online

Young men with no male role models in their lives and women without a mother figure struggle to keep their lives on track, a hard-hitting report warns today. The Prince’s Trust youth index, the largest survey of its kind, found that....67 per cent more likely to be unemployed than their counterparts. They are also significantly more likely to stay unemployed for longer than their peers, the report suggests....It found that young men with no male role model are 50 per cent more likely to abuse drugs and young females in the corresponding position are significantly more likely to drink to excess..

Young men with no male role model to look up to were twice as likely to turn or consider turning to crime as a result of being unemployed...The report, which was based on interviews with 2,170 16 to 25-year-olds...These young men are also three times more likely to feel down or depressed all of the time and significantly more likely to admit that they cannot remember the last time they felt proud...They are also significantly less likely to feel happy and confident than those with male role models, according to the figures....The Prince’s Trust report, which was carried out by YouGov, suggests young people without male role models are more than twice as likely to lack a sense of belonging.

The states have a vested interest in incentivizing the best formative environment for kids to keep the welfare, prison and mental ward numbers down.. This might be some of the exceptional "legalistic argle-bargle" that might cause Scalia to sit up straighter in his chair and take a second look..

 

[danielpalos]

Article 4, Section 2 is not vague at all; the only Thing vague, is the disingenuous, special pleading (and that form of frivolity in legal venues), of those of the opposing view.

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

That is part of our supreme law of the land, as a rational choice in Any conflict of laws arising under the authority of the United States.

 

[Syriusly]

Do you honestly think Scalia doesn't know about the Windsor ruling? And yet he's concluded that its inevitable that the SCOTUS will overturn gay marriage bans using the exact same reasoning of Windsor.

"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
Discenting from Windsor v. US decision

UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR LII Legal Information Institute

Was Scalia even familiar with the Prince's Trust study

LOL....you are so delusional.

 

[Skylar]

Was Scalia even familiar with the Prince's Trust study at the time he wrote that? As your group is fond of saying "opinions about gay marraige are changing rapidly"...

The Prince Trust study never even mentions same sex marriage or same sex parents, nor measures any effects of them.. Nor was it entered into evidence by any litigant in the Windsor case. That study is your personal obsession. And your obsessions are irrelevant to the courts. Worse, there are at least a dozen studies that do measure same sex parenting and the effects on children. And you ignore them all.....for no particular reason.

Your willful ignorance doesn't mean the courts are similarly bound. Nor does it mandate the court give a shit about your personal obsessions.

The Windsor court did rule on the effects of denying same sex marriage on children however;

"And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives....

....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for familiesby taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. See 26 U. S. C. §106; Treas. Reg. §1.106–1, 26 CFR §1.106–1 (2012); IRS Private Letter Ruling 9850011 (Sept. 10, 1998). And it denies or re-duces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouseand parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.

Windsor V. US

You can ignore the actual Windsor ruling if you wish. But the Court is unlikely to ignore itself just because their findings are inconvenient to your argument.

As for Scalia, he opposes same sex marriage. And even he, reading the Windsor ruling, finds the court's indication that it will overturn state gay marriage bans 'beyond mistaking'. And the court using the exact logic it used in Windsor to overturn gay marriage bans 'inevitable.'

But you know better, huh?

 

[Skylar]

Do you honestly think Scalia doesn't know about the Windsor ruling? And yet he's concluded that its inevitable that the SCOTUS will overturn gay marriage bans using the exact same reasoning of Windsor.

"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
Discenting from Windsor v. US decision

UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR LII Legal Information Institute

Was Scalia even familiar with the Prince's Trust study

LOL....you are so delusional.

We've definitely reached Cliff Claven 'People who have never been in my kitchen' territory with Silo.