Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

[Boss]

You people can think whatever you like. You've proven yourselves to be radical extremists who are not willing to compromise. When this is all said and done, it will closely resemble the solution I prescribed and you totally shit on. You will be able to have same-sex partnerships and get benefits, etc. You will not have government sanctioning Gay Marriage. If you don't want to believe that at this time, that's fine. I don't expect you to right now, you're too full of piss and vinegar. You've had a few victories and now you're all doing victory laps. There is more to come, and it';s not all going to go your way. There are many people in this country who do not believe in what you are trying to do and will not stand for it. Again... don't care if you believe me, not trying to intimidate you. Just stating what is the fact of life here. Our society is not one in which radical extremists can bull-rush their agenda on the rest of us.

 

[Boss]

If the court declares a law that denies marriage licenses to gay couples is unconstitutional, then passing a law that denies gay couples marriage licenses after the fact is blatantly unconstitutional. Legislatures cannot nullify court decisions on constitutional questions that they disagree with.

1.) The court has never ruled that denying marriage licenses to gay couples is unconstitutional. I know that you interpreted it that way, but you need to go read the ruling.

2.) Passing a law which defines marriage is not unconstitutional.

3.) Legislatures most certainly CAN nullify court decisions on constitutional questions they disagree with. If they couldn't, we would have had Civil Rights in 1865. You are dealing with "co-equal" branches of government, the SCOTUS does not have supreme power over legislature.

 

[WorldWatcher]

If the court declares a law that denies marriage licenses to gay couples is unconstitutional, then passing a law that denies gay couples marriage licenses after the fact is blatantly unconstitutional. Legislatures cannot nullify court decisions on constitutional questions that they disagree with.

1.) The court has never ruled that denying marriage licenses to gay couples is unconstitutional. I know that you interpreted it that way, but you need to go read the ruling.

Where have you been since the Windsor decision?

There have quite a number of court rulings showing that denying same-sex couples Civil Marriages ("same-sex" more correct because there is no "gay" test as part of the licensing process) was unconstitutional.

Then after the Federal District Court rulings there were 7 cases, in 4 States, ruled on by 3 Circuit Court of Appeals stating that same-sex Civil Marriage bans were unconstitutional. Those cases were appealed to the SCOTUS which recently rejected the appeals meaning the Circuit Court declaration that the bans were unconstitutional were the final rulings on the matter.



>>>>>

 

[Boss]

Where have you been since the Windsor decision?

Windsor: Not about denying marriage licenses to gay couples.

Those cases were appealed to the SCOTUS which recently rejected the appeals meaning...

Meaning SCOTUS did not rule on the issue of gay marriage licenses. .

Circuit Court declaration that the bans were unconstitutional were the final rulings on the matter.

For their respective states, however... Justices Alito, Kennedy and Sotomayor all went on record to say the cases should have been dismissed at the lower court level because they lack standing. They all concurred, the "will of the people" certainly trumps any court ruling in almost all cases.

The Obama justice department has adopted the policy of not defending DOMA cases. They waited until after re-election to implement this policy. There is a reason for that. And there is a reason why this continues to be "won" in courts, where the ruling of three judges or even a single judge, is the deciding factor. The numbers at the ballot box are not there.

 

[Czernobog]

You people can think whatever you like... don't care if you believe me...

That is the extent of your post that is factual. The rest is nothing more than opinionated conjecture - conjecture which doesn't even have any basis beyond your own hatred of homosexuals, and anger that they are being allowed access to marriage. You don't need to bother responding with how untrue that is - your every post proves otherwise. I understand that you fervently hope that some day, someone will take up your cause, and enact some slightly altered version of DOMA. Unfortunately, in a world where only 38% of Americans even oppose gay marriage - a number that is shrinking with every new poll - there is simply no realistic justification for believing that will ever happen. I'm sorry to have to be so blunt, but you just keep repeating the same wish over, and over. I understand that it is what you want, but reality is what it is. There are not 100 million evangelicals storming Washington. There is no army of moralists that are going to force the gays back into the closets where they belong. There is only an extremely vocal, radical right who just can't accept the fact that they have lost - again.

Better luck, next time.

 

[Taz]

Why is everyone afraid of the word marriage? And why do some people care what gays call their union? Trying to control gays?

 

[ShackledNation]

If the court declares a law that denies marriage licenses to gay couples is unconstitutional, then passing a law that denies gay couples marriage licenses after the fact is blatantly unconstitutional. Legislatures cannot nullify court decisions on constitutional questions that they disagree with.

1.) The court has never ruled that denying marriage licenses to gay couples is unconstitutional. I know that you interpreted it that way, but you need to go read the ruling.

The Supreme Court has not, correct. But that was never the claim. All federal appeals courts to date that have ruled on the issue have ruled that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional, as have nearly all district courts.

2.) Passing a law which defines marriage is not unconstitutional.

So passing a law that defines marriage as between two people of the same race is constitutional? Definitions cannot violate the Constitution of the United States. And nearly ever court has ruled definitions excluding same-sex couples, like definitions based on race, do violate the Constitution.

3.) Legislatures most certainly CAN nullify court decisions on constitutional questions they disagree with. If they couldn't, we would have had Civil Rights in 1865. You are dealing with "co-equal" branches of government, the SCOTUS does not have supreme power over legislature.

.
SCOTUS has supreme power over interpreting the Constitution. Of course if the Constitution is amended what will be interpreted will change. Nobody has ever disputed that. I fail to see the relevancy of your point, however. There will not and will never be a constitutional amendment defining marriage exclusively between a man and a woman.

 

[WorldWatcher]

1.) The court has never ruled that denying marriage licenses to gay couples is unconstitutional. I know that you interpreted it that way, but you need to go read the ruling.

Where have you been since the Windsor decision?

Windsor: Not about denying marriage licenses to gay couples.

Didn't say it was. Windsor was about the Federal government not recognizing valid Civil Marriages entered into under State law.

Those cases were appealed to the SCOTUS which recently rejected the appeals meaning...

Meaning SCOTUS did not rule on the issue of gay marriage licenses. .

You said "The court...", yes courts Federal District Courts and Circuit Courts have ruled. The SCOTUS choose to allow those rulings to stand and for SSCM's to start adding about 12-states (IIRC) to 19 that already had recognized Civil Marriage between same-sex couples.

Circuit Court declaration that the bans were unconstitutional were the final rulings on the matter.

For their respective states, however... Justices Alito, Kennedy and Sotomayor all went on record to say the cases should have been dismissed at the lower court level because they lack standing.

Please cite your source.

The Obama justice department has adopted the policy of not defending DOMA cases. They waited until after re-election to implement this policy. There is a reason for that. And there is a reason why this continues to be "won" in courts, where the ruling of three judges or even a single judge, is the deciding factor.

What of course all has nothing to do with the dozens of district court cases, the 7 cases ruled on by 3 different Circuit court - none of which where accepted for appeal by the SCOTUS.

The numbers at the ballot box are not there.

Last General Election (2012) - 4 initiatives. Marriage Equality won in all 4 cases.

A decade ago the numbers were on the pro-discrimination side at the ballot box. Not anymore.



>>>>

 

[Boss]

AGAIN... The SCOTUS has NOT RULED that prohibiting gay marriage licenses violates the US Constitution. Twist and turn, spin and contort... Them's the facts.

 

[Czernobog]

AGAIN... The SCOTUS has NOT RULED that prohibiting gay marriage licenses violates the US Constitution. Twist and turn, spin and contort... Them's the facts.

Wellll....actually they did. The "Ruling" was "We have nothing to add to the ruling of the lower courts". You may not like that ruling, but it was a ruling. It was, in fact, the choice of the Supreme Court to not overturn the lower courts' rulings. You can put any kind of spin on that decision you like, the bottom line is SCOTUS agreed with the lower courts.

The only other possible interpretation of recent events is that SCOTUS said, "Ya know what? The lower courts fucked up, but we just don't give a shit." Is that really the position you wanna stake out? That the highest court in the land just said, "Fuck it! We don't care. Let's go have a beer,"? Really???

Because, if its not, then you are left with no alternative but to accept the fact that SCOTUS Chose. Not. To. Hear the gay marriage appeals, because they agreed with the rulings, and saw no reason to waste the court's time hearing arguments on rulings they already knew they were going to uphold.

 

[WorldWatcher]

1.) The court has never ruled that denying marriage licenses to gay couples is unconstitutional. I know that you interpreted it that way, but you need to go read the ruling.

AGAIN... The SCOTUS has NOT RULED that prohibiting gay marriage licenses violates the US Constitution. Twist and turn, spin and contort... Them's the facts.

Move the goalpost much?

You said "the court". Well yes they have "the Federal District court" here, "the Federal District Court" there, and then in addition there was the 10th Circuit Court, the 9th Circuit Court, the 7th Circuit Court, and the 4th Circuit Court.

And the SCOTUS, with a variety of cases to choose from, rejected all the appeals requests allowing SSCM in over a dozen new states.

Twist and turn, spin and contort all you want. The fact is that in those jurisdictions ban's on SSCM were found unconstitutional and those laws neutered.


>>>>

 

[Boss]

AGAIN... The SCOTUS has NOT RULED that prohibiting gay marriage licenses violates the US Constitution. Twist and turn, spin and contort... Them's the facts.

Wellll....actually they did. The "Ruling" was "We have nothing to add to the ruling of the lower courts". You may not like that ruling, but it was a ruling. It was, in fact, the choice of the Supreme Court to not overturn the lower courts' rulings. You can put any kind of spin on that decision you like, the bottom line is SCOTUS agreed with the lower courts.

The only other possible interpretation of recent events is that SCOTUS said, "Ya know what? The lower courts fucked up, but we just don't give a shit." Is that really the position you wanna stake out? That the highest court in the land just said, "Fuck it! We don't care. Let's go have a beer,"? Really???

Because, if its not, then you are left with no alternative but to accept the fact that SCOTUS Chose. Not. To. Hear the gay marriage appeals, because they agreed with the rulings, and saw no reason to waste the court's time hearing arguments on rulings they already knew they were going to uphold.

LMAO... No sir... Not hearing a case is NEVER a ruling. YOU are the one spinning that.

In the case of California's Prop 8, the SCOTUS justices Alito, Kennedy and Sotomayor all reviewed it and declared the case "lacked standing" and the lower court should have ruled accordingly. SCOTUS however, cannot tell the California Supreme Court what to do.

They did not agree to not overturn, they did not agree to uphold... they agreed not to hear the case.

 

[Czernobog]

AGAIN... The SCOTUS has NOT RULED that prohibiting gay marriage licenses violates the US Constitution. Twist and turn, spin and contort... Them's the facts.

Wellll....actually they did. The "Ruling" was "We have nothing to add to the ruling of the lower courts". You may not like that ruling, but it was a ruling. It was, in fact, the choice of the Supreme Court to not overturn the lower courts' rulings. You can put any kind of spin on that decision you like, the bottom line is SCOTUS agreed with the lower courts.

The only other possible interpretation of recent events is that SCOTUS said, "Ya know what? The lower courts fucked up, but we just don't give a shit." Is that really the position you wanna stake out? That the highest court in the land just said, "Fuck it! We don't care. Let's go have a beer,"? Really???

Because, if its not, then you are left with no alternative but to accept the fact that SCOTUS Chose. Not. To. Hear the gay marriage appeals, because they agreed with the rulings, and saw no reason to waste the court's time hearing arguments on rulings they already knew they were going to uphold.

LMAO... No sir... Not hearing a case is NEVER a ruling. YOU are the one spinning that.

In the case of California's Prop 8, the SCOTUS justices Alito, Kennedy and Sotomayor all reviewed it and declared the case "lacked standing" and the lower court should have ruled accordingly. SCOTUS however, cannot tell the California Supreme Court what to do.

They did not agree to not overturn, they did not agree to uphold... they agreed not to hear the case.

Okay. Whatever helps you sleep at night. I mean, you apparently think that at least three Supreme Court justices thought that, in at least one case, the lower courts made the wrong decision, and then just said "Meh. Fuck it! We don't care. Let's go have a beer". If that's how you think our SCOTUS works, okay.

 

[Boss]

AGAIN... The SCOTUS has NOT RULED that prohibiting gay marriage licenses violates the US Constitution. Twist and turn, spin and contort... Them's the facts.

Wellll....actually they did. The "Ruling" was "We have nothing to add to the ruling of the lower courts". You may not like that ruling, but it was a ruling. It was, in fact, the choice of the Supreme Court to not overturn the lower courts' rulings. You can put any kind of spin on that decision you like, the bottom line is SCOTUS agreed with the lower courts.

The only other possible interpretation of recent events is that SCOTUS said, "Ya know what? The lower courts fucked up, but we just don't give a shit." Is that really the position you wanna stake out? That the highest court in the land just said, "Fuck it! We don't care. Let's go have a beer,"? Really???

Because, if its not, then you are left with no alternative but to accept the fact that SCOTUS Chose. Not. To. Hear the gay marriage appeals, because they agreed with the rulings, and saw no reason to waste the court's time hearing arguments on rulings they already knew they were going to uphold.

LMAO... No sir... Not hearing a case is NEVER a ruling. YOU are the one spinning that.

In the case of California's Prop 8, the SCOTUS justices Alito, Kennedy and Sotomayor all reviewed it and declared the case "lacked standing" and the lower court should have ruled accordingly. SCOTUS however, cannot tell the California Supreme Court what to do.

They did not agree to not overturn, they did not agree to uphold... they agreed not to hear the case.

Okay. Whatever helps you sleep at night. I mean, you apparently think that at least three Supreme Court justices thought that, in at least one case, the lower courts made the wrong decision, and then just said "Meh. Fuck it! We don't care. Let's go have a beer". If that's how you think our SCOTUS works, okay.

You are the one who apparently doesn't understand how the SCOTUS reviews and decides which cases to hear. See.... They're not looking at cases as opportunities to rewrite the Constitution and ensconce Progressivism into law by judicial fiat.

I did not say they thought the lower court made the wrong decision, they thought the case should not have been heard because it lacked standing. Which is why they didn't hear the case.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Marriage is the joining of one man, with one woman. There is no alternative version, as nature provides the design of marriage, in nature's design of humanity. Therefore there is nothing is the 'equal' to marriage. One is either single, or a man married to a woman, a woman married to a man. Period.

 

[Taz]

Marriage is the joining of one man, with one woman. There is no alternative version, as nature provides the design of marriage, in nature's design of humanity. Therefore there is nothing is the 'equal' to marriage. One is either single, or a man married to a woman, a woman married to a man. Period.

It's amazing how people don't mind showing off how homophobic they are.

 

[Syriusly]

AGAIN... The SCOTUS has NOT RULED that prohibiting gay marriage licenses violates the US Constitution. Twist and turn, spin and contort... Them's the facts.

Wellll....actually they did. The "Ruling" was "We have nothing to add to the ruling of the lower courts". You may not like that ruling, but it was a ruling. It was, in fact, the choice of the Supreme Court to not overturn the lower courts' rulings. You can put any kind of spin on that decision you like, the bottom line is SCOTUS agreed with the lower courts.

The only other possible interpretation of recent events is that SCOTUS said, "Ya know what? The lower courts fucked up, but we just don't give a shit." Is that really the position you wanna stake out? That the highest court in the land just said, "Fuck it! We don't care. Let's go have a beer,"? Really???

Because, if its not, then you are left with no alternative but to accept the fact that SCOTUS Chose. Not. To. Hear the gay marriage appeals, because they agreed with the rulings, and saw no reason to waste the court's time hearing arguments on rulings they already knew they were going to uphold.

LMAO... No sir... Not hearing a case is NEVER a ruling. YOU are the one spinning that.

In the case of California's Prop 8, the SCOTUS justices Alito, Kennedy and Sotomayor all reviewed it and declared the case "lacked standing" and the lower court should have ruled accordingly. SCOTUS however, cannot tell the California Supreme Court what to do.

They did not agree to not overturn, they did not agree to uphold... they agreed not to hear the case.

Okay. Whatever helps you sleep at night. I mean, you apparently think that at least three Supreme Court justices thought that, in at least one case, the lower courts made the wrong decision, and then just said "Meh. Fuck it! We don't care. Let's go have a beer". If that's how you think our SCOTUS works, okay.

You are the one who apparently doesn't understand how the SCOTUS reviews and decides which cases to hear. See.... They're not looking at cases as opportunities to rewrite the Constitution and ensconce Progressivism into law by judicial fiat.

I did not say they thought the lower court made the wrong decision, they thought the case should not have been heard because it lacked standing. Which is why they didn't hear the case.

But they did hear the case.

That is why they had oral arguments.

During Tuesday's Supreme Court arguments over the constitutionality of Proposition 8, Justice Anthony Kennedy--who is widely considered the swing vote in the case--suggested that California's gay marriage ban causes "immediate legal injury" to children of same-sex parents.

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

Justice Sonia Sotomayor reportedly also asked the lawyer defending Prop 8 to explain what injury the proponents of the ban have suffered, suggesting doubts about the standing of the case.

The opponents of Prop 8 had argued that the defenders of Prop 8 had no standing- and in the end- after hearing the case from both sides- hearing about the merits of the case from both sides- the Court rejected the appeal and refused to overturn the Federal Courts decision that Prop 8 was unconstitutional- because of standing

ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which SCALIA,
GINSBURG, BREYER, and KAGAN, JJ., joined

Kennedy, Alito and Sotomayor- contrary to your claim did not claim that the case lacked standing. They were part of the dissent.

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage is the joining of one man, with one woman. There is no alternative version, as nature provides the design of marriage, in nature's design of humanity. Therefore there is nothing is the 'equal' to marriage. One is either single, or a man married to a woman, a woman married to a man. Period.

Bat guano crazy.

 

[Czernobog]

AGAIN... The SCOTUS has NOT RULED that prohibiting gay marriage licenses violates the US Constitution. Twist and turn, spin and contort... Them's the facts.

Wellll....actually they did. The "Ruling" was "We have nothing to add to the ruling of the lower courts". You may not like that ruling, but it was a ruling. It was, in fact, the choice of the Supreme Court to not overturn the lower courts' rulings. You can put any kind of spin on that decision you like, the bottom line is SCOTUS agreed with the lower courts.

The only other possible interpretation of recent events is that SCOTUS said, "Ya know what? The lower courts fucked up, but we just don't give a shit." Is that really the position you wanna stake out? That the highest court in the land just said, "Fuck it! We don't care. Let's go have a beer,"? Really???

Because, if its not, then you are left with no alternative but to accept the fact that SCOTUS Chose. Not. To. Hear the gay marriage appeals, because they agreed with the rulings, and saw no reason to waste the court's time hearing arguments on rulings they already knew they were going to uphold.

LMAO... No sir... Not hearing a case is NEVER a ruling. YOU are the one spinning that.

In the case of California's Prop 8, the SCOTUS justices Alito, Kennedy and Sotomayor all reviewed it and declared the case "lacked standing" and the lower court should have ruled accordingly. SCOTUS however, cannot tell the California Supreme Court what to do.

They did not agree to not overturn, they did not agree to uphold... they agreed not to hear the case.

Okay. Whatever helps you sleep at night. I mean, you apparently think that at least three Supreme Court justices thought that, in at least one case, the lower courts made the wrong decision, and then just said "Meh. Fuck it! We don't care. Let's go have a beer". If that's how you think our SCOTUS works, okay.

You are the one who apparently doesn't understand how the SCOTUS reviews and decides which cases to hear. See.... They're not looking at cases as opportunities to rewrite the Constitution and ensconce Progressivism into law by judicial fiat.

I did not say they thought the lower court made the wrong decision, they thought the case should not have been heard because it lacked standing. Which is why they didn't hear the case.

So, just so we understand one another, it is your contention that the SCOTUS felt that the Lower Court should never have heard a case, because the people who brought suit had no standing. Furthermore, it is your contention that SCOTUS decided that the proper action to take, in order to correct this miscarriage of justice, was to do nothing rather than setting aside the ruling of this lower court, which never should have existed in the first place, and is certainly within the purview of the SCOTUS to do. That is your position? Really???? And you still claim that the decision to do nothing about a lower court ruling that you insist was wrong is, in no way, indicative of the SCOTUS' views of the ruling? REALLY???

 

[WorldWatcher]

So, just so we understand one another, it is your contention that the SCOTUS felt that the Lower Court should never have heard a case, because the people who brought suit had no standing. Furthermore, it is your contention that SCOTUS decided that the proper action to take, in order to correct this miscarriage of justice, was to do nothing rather than setting aside the ruling of this lower court, which never should have existed in the first place, and is certainly within the purview of the SCOTUS to do. That is your position? Really???? And you still claim that the decision to do nothing about a lower court ruling that you insist was wrong is, in no way, indicative of the SCOTUS' views of the ruling? REALLY???

Correct me if I'm wrong as I'm doing this from memory:

1. Prop 8 was passed.

2. Suit was filed in Federal District court.

3. The State (with Standing) **DID** defend the Proposition in Federal court.

4. The Court ruled against the State.

5. The State accepted the ruling and decided NOT to appeal the decision.

6. Proponents of the measure then moved to defend the measure on appeal. Which the California Supreme Court said they could do.​

So the interesting point is that the State (with standing) did defend the case at the District Court level, however those WITHOUT standing are the ones that attempted to defend it on appeal. The SCOTUS ruling was that the proponents didn't have standing to appeal and so reversed the 9th Circuit courts decision and dismissed the SCOTUS case for standing. Which of course left the District Court ruling as the final decision in the case.

At no point did the SCOTUS say that the State didn't have standing to defend the case in District Court and that the case never should have been heard (in that court) for lack of standing.


>>>>