US Supreme Court to Meet This Week To Decide To Take Up Gay Marriage Debate/Case

[Silhouette]

We are citizens of the United States first and foremost, residents of the states subordinate to that, as one's civil rights are immune from the states' efforts to violate those rights, including the rights of gay Americans to equal protection of the law, and equal access to marriage law.
You and others hostile to the civil rights of gay Americans have failed time and again to use the 'well-being' of children to justify your hatred of same-sex couples, where there is no objective, documented evidence whatsoever that children with parents of the same-sex are at some sort of 'disadvantage.'

Foremost of those rights is the one to have one's vote count. Also "Freedom of the exercise of religion".

I don't recall anything in the Constitution dominant to that with regards to marriage. In fact, what I do recall is Windsor 2013 Affirming that under the specific question of deviant sex lifestyles like "same-sex marriage", the states have the "unquestioned authority" "since our nation's beginning" on the yea or nay on that local decision. On that SPECIFIC QUESTION of law.

Now you'll go and cite three or four questions of law that had to do with race, but not lifestyles; and as such they don't qualify as Opinions on the specific question. That has already been answered in Windsor 2013.

But like I told the last poster, good luck getting the Court to overturn itself in two years' time.

 

[Syriusly]

States have always had an interest in incentivizing what the Citizens of these unique lands have determined is the best formative environment for kids. Otherwise the state has no earthly reason to be involved in marriage at all.

The State has interest in Marriage for the same reason that State's require that birth's and death's be registered.

 

[Syriusly]

States have always had an interest in incentivizing what the Citizens of these unique lands have determined is the best formative environment for kids. Otherwise the state has no earthly reason to be involved in marriage at all.

The "state" has in interest in intruding into our personal lives in all sorts of untoward ways. And we have an "interest" as individuals to tell them to get fucked.

Not when the interest of the most important people in marriage comes into play.

The most important people in a marriage are by definition the two people getting married.

Those are the only people who are in a marriage.

IF a couple have children- and get married- then they become married parents.
IF a couple gets married- and then has children- then they become married parents.

Preventing same gender parents from marrying only prevents the children of same gender couples from having married parents.

And that is a real harm to those children.

 

[Syriusly]

States have always had an interest in incentivizing what the Citizens of these unique lands have determined is the best formative environment for kids. Otherwise the state has no earthly reason to be involved in marriage at all.

The "state" has in interest in intruding into our personal lives in all sorts of untoward ways. And we have an "interest" as individuals to tell them to get fucked.

Not when the interest of the most important people in marriage comes into play. You don't tell kids' wellbeing to "get fucked".

I tell busybodies who want to control their neighbors to get fucked.

Well, the US Supreme Court disagrees in Windsor 2013. .

Nope- Windsor said that the Federal Government could ignore marriages allowed by States.

 

[Syriusly]

We are citizens of the United States first and foremost, residents of the states subordinate to that, as one's civil rights are immune from the states' efforts to violate those rights, including the rights of gay Americans to equal protection of the law, and equal access to marriage law.
You and others hostile to the civil rights of gay Americans have failed time and again to use the 'well-being' of children to justify your hatred of same-sex couples, where there is no objective, documented evidence whatsoever that children with parents of the same-sex are at some sort of 'disadvantage.'

Foremost of those rights is the one to have one's vote count. Also "Freedom of the exercise of religion".

I don't recall anything in the Constitution dominant to that with regards to marriage. In fact, what I do recall is Windsor 2013 Affirming that under the specific question of deviant sex lifestyles like "same-sex marriage", the states have the "unquestioned authority" .

No- the court did not say that:

Here is what the court said:

This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of disapproval of a class recognized and protected by state law. DOMA’s avowed purpose and practical effect are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States.

Note- the Courts reference to 'stigma'....

And of course this part which you always ignore

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,

 

[Skylar]

I don't recall anything in the Constitution dominant to that with regards to marriage. In fact, what I do recall is Windsor 2013 Affirming that under the specific question of deviant sex lifestyles like "same-sex marriage", the states have the "unquestioned authority" "since our nation's beginning" on the yea or nay on that local decision. On that SPECIFIC QUESTION of law.

Subject to constitutional guarantees. That's the part you always omit from any mention of the Windsor ruling. Alas, the Windsor ruling doesn't omit their mention.

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

Your willful ignorance is completely irrelevant to the outcome of any ruling. Just because you ignore constitutional guarantees doesn't mean that the courts must as well.

Worse for you, the basis of challenging the 6th circuit court's decision affirming gay marriage bans is that gay marriage bans violate constitutional guarantees. That's the specific question of laaw that is being reviewed by the USSC in April.

Now you'll go and cite three or four questions of law that had to do with race, but not lifestyles; and as such they don't qualify as Opinions on the specific question. That has already been answered in Windsor 2013.

The issue of whether or not gay marriage bans violate constitutional guarantees wasn't answered by the Windsor court. Nor was it asked of the Windsor court. Nor did the Windsor court even mention gay marriage bans.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Silhouette]

I don't recall anything in the Constitution dominant to that with regards to marriage. In fact, what I do recall is Windsor 2013 Affirming that under the specific question of deviant sex lifestyles like "same-sex marriage", the states have the "unquestioned authority" "since our nation's beginning" on the yea or nay on that local decision. On that SPECIFIC QUESTION of law.

Subject to constitutional guarantees. That's the part you always omit from any mention of the Windsor ruling. Alas, the Windsor ruling doesn't omit their mention.

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

YET....

The Court ended its Findings saying "gay marriage is only legal in 11 states". And if you aren't keen enough to get it yet, that bit was thrown in to keep your cult from freaking the fuck out when they sat down and realized Windsor affirmed states' rights on the SPECIFIC QUESTION OF LAW which was same-sex marriage, who gets to decide on it, and when that decision is made, how the fed has to regard it. Windsor was PRECISELY ABOUT who gets to decide on gay marriage. Pay attention here closely: DOMA was dismantled in part specifically because the Court Found that on the question of gay marriage, UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE states get the right to decide. And once they decide, THAT'S IT, the fed has to abide by what they say.

That's it. That is Windsor 2013's essence condensed. The Court didn't say "Loving applies here to protect same-sex marriage". The Court simply said "subject to Constitutional guarantees" OF WHICH THERE ARE NONE FOR GAY MARRIAGE or any other lifestyle-marriage for that matter. The Court KNEW THAT when it wrote that line. Sorry to be the one to break it to you.

Can you imagine the uproar at the time if the LGBT cult read Windsor without that line? The only conclusion they could arrive at would be: "That's it, it's over. States get to decide" (which doesn't really mean it's over, but that the faithful would have to really roll up their sleeves and evangelize at the state level instead). That was the conclusion of Windsor, only the Court wanted to throw out that little shred of hope so that you folks wouldn't pitch yourselves off of tall buildings because you didn't get your way federally and would have to work harder.

"Only legal in 11 states"...there's your sign. Read it. That is the law until further notice. Lower courts are in violation of the law and federal procedure by attempting (it isn't binding) to overturn Windsor's specific finding of law with regards to states' rights from underneath SCOTUS.

 

[Syriusly]

I don't recall anything in the Constitution dominant to that with regards to marriage. In fact, what I do recall is Windsor 2013 Affirming that under the specific question of deviant sex lifestyles like "same-sex marriage", the states have the "unquestioned authority" "since our nation's beginning" on the yea or nay on that local decision. On that SPECIFIC QUESTION of law.

Subject to constitutional guarantees. That's the part you always omit from any mention of the Windsor ruling. Alas, the Windsor ruling doesn't omit their mention.

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

YET....

The Court ended its Findings saying "gay marriage is only legal in 11 states". And if you aren't keen enough to get it yet, that bit was thrown in to keep your cult from freaking the fuck out .

No- here is how the Court ended its 'findings'

The power the Constitution grants it also restrains. And though Congress has great authority to design laws to fit its own conception of sound national policy, it cannot deny the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

What has been explained to this point should more than suffice to establish that the principal purpose and the necessary effect of this law are to demean those persons who are in a lawful same-sex marriage. This requiresthe Court to hold, as it now does, that DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by theFifth Amendment of the Constitution.

The liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause contains within it the prohibition against denying to any person the equal protection of the laws. See Bolling, 347 U. S., at 499–500; Adarand Constructors, Inc. v.Peña, 515 U. S. 200–218 (1995). While the Fifth Amendment itself withdraws from Government the power to degrade or demean in the way this law does,the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment makes that Fifth Amendment right all the more specific and all the better understood and preserved.

The class to which DOMA directs its restrictions and restraints are those persons who are joined in same-sex marriages made lawful by the State. DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty. It imposes a disability on the class by refusing to acknowledge a status the State finds to be dignified and proper. DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others. The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment. This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

 

[Skylar]

YET....

The Court ended its Findings saying "gay marriage is only legal in 11 states".

In English, quotation marks denote a quote. There is no quote in the Windsor ruling that says "gay marriage is only legal in 11 states". You appear to be quoting the imaginary version of Windsor in your head that only you can see and read.

Which is meaningless jibber jabber.

And if you aren't keen enough to get it yet, that bit was thrown in to keep your cult from freaking the fuck out when they sat down and realized Windsor affirmed states' rights on the SPECIFIC QUESTION OF LAW which was same-sex marriage, who gets to decide on it, and when that decision is made, how the fed has to regard it.

The specific question of law being answered in the Windsor ruling was whether DOMA deprived same sex couples of equal protection as guaranteed by the 5th amendment:

Issue: Whether Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, 1 U.S.C. § 7, which defines the term “marriage” for all purposes under federal law as “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife,” deprives same-sex couples who are lawfully married under the laws of their states (such as New York) of the equal protection of the laws, as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Windsor v. United States SCOTUSblog

Not any 'states rights' issue. Really, truly, and in the most fundamental way possible, Silo......you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

The Court simply said "subject to Constitutional guarantees" OF WHICH THERE ARE NONE FOR GAY MARRIAGE or any other lifestyle-marriage for that matter.

Show us where in the Windsor ruling that the court's found that there were no constitutional guarantees for gay marriage. Here's the ruling:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf

Nothing, huh? The courts never said any such thing. Try again.

Lower courts are in violation of the law and federal procedure by attempting (it isn't binding) to overturn Windsor's specific finding of law with regards to states' rights from underneath SCOTUS.

Or....you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. As the passages you're citing from the Windsor ruling are completely imaginary.

This simple fact is demonstrated by the Supreme Court preserving every single lower court ruling that overturned gay marriage. And denying stays of implementation of gay marriage requested by any State under the jurisdiction of those lower court rulings overturning gay marriage bans.

Every single one. Without exception. Try again.

 

[Silhouette]

In English, quotation marks denote a quote. There is no quote in the Windsor ruling that says "gay marriage is only legal in 11 states". You appear to be quoting the imaginary version of Windsor in your head that only you can see and read....

United States v. Windsor

Opinion page 14
"And 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 to enlarge the definition of marriage... 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.."

 

[Silhouette]

In English, quotation marks denote a quote. There is no quote in the Windsor ruling that says "gay marriage is only legal in 11 states". You appear to be quoting the imaginary version of Windsor in your head that only you can see and read....

United States v. Windsor

Opinion page 14
"And 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 to enlarge the definition of marriage... 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.."

Cat got your tongue Skylar?

 

[Skylar]

In English, quotation marks denote a quote. There is no quote in the Windsor ruling that says "gay marriage is only legal in 11 states". You appear to be quoting the imaginary version of Windsor in your head that only you can see and read....

United States v. Windsor

Opinion page 14
"And 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 to enlarge the definition of marriage... 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.."

Cat got your tongue Skylar?

That's not what you quoted, Silo. This is:

gay marriage is only legal in 11 states

With you offering your imaginary quote as the literal law until further notice;

"Only legal in 11 states"...there's your sign. Read it. That is the law until further notice.

Post 337
US Supreme Court to Meet This Week To Decide To Take Up Gay Marriage Debate Case Page 35 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

No, Silo...that's not the law until further notice, because the courts never said that. They said "as of this writing, 11 other States and the District of Columbia, decided that same-sex couples should have the right to marry".

So how is '11 other States and the District of Columbia, decided that same-sex couples should have the right to marry' the 'law until further notice'?

The court in no way limits constitutional guarantees to only those 11 states in Windsor. They don't even use the term 'only' in the actual quote. You added that. The court never even mentions gay marriage bans in Windsor. Let alone rules that such bans are constitutional. You imagined it.

And my favorite Silhocination from your last load of pseudo-legal gibberish?

The Court simply said "subject to Constitutional guarantees" OF WHICH THERE ARE NONE FOR GAY MARRIAGE or any other lifestyle-marriage for that matter.

Here's the entire Windsor ruling:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf

Show us where in the Windsor ruling that the court's found that there were no constitutional guarantees for gay marriage.

Cat got your tongue Silo?

 

[Silhouette]

It's not an imaginary quote. Follow the link idiot! Read page 14 for yourself. It has the entire Windsor ruling too. United States v. Windsor

 

[WorldWatcher]

Opinion page 14
"And 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 to enlarge the definition of marriage... 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.."

Two things about Sil's quote:

1. Here is the part Sil doesn't want people to see, even though it's pretty short by replacing it with "...." in her "quote": "and so live with pride in themselves and their union and in a status of equality with all other married persons." A recognition that denying SSCM means the state is not treating them equally. Interesting the leave that bit out.

2. (S)he has been repeated been wrong staying that Windsor means only 11 States have legal SSCM. Well (s)he must not be able to count because it's New York + 11 which equal 12.​

>>>>

 

[Skylar]

It's not an imaginary quote.

It thoroughly imaginary. Of your quote, the only words that actually existed in the Windsor citation were '11' and 'states'. Every other word you made up.

So how is '11 other States and the District of Columbia, decided that same-sex couples should have the right to marry' the 'law until further notice'?

You can't say. Even you can make heads nor tails of your own pseudo-legal gibberish.

And of course.......

The Court simply said "subject to Constitutional guarantees" OF WHICH THERE ARE NONE FOR GAY MARRIAGE or any other lifestyle-marriage for that matter.

Here's the entire Windsor ruling: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf

Show us where in the Windsor ruling that the court's found that there were no constitutional guarantees for gay marriage.

Cat still got your tongue Silo? If even you are going to abandon your pseudo-legal ramblings and treat them like the rhetorical garbage they are, then surely you can understand when we treat your words the same way.

 

[Montrovant]

In English, quotation marks denote a quote. There is no quote in the Windsor ruling that says "gay marriage is only legal in 11 states". You appear to be quoting the imaginary version of Windsor in your head that only you can see and read....

United States v. Windsor

Opinion page 14
"And 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 to enlarge the definition of marriage... 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.."

Do you understand what a quote is? It's not the same as, say, a paraphrase.

Also, as WorldWatcher pointed out, New York plus 11 other states does not equal 11 states, it equals 12.

 

[Silhouette]

United States v. Windsor

Opinion page 14
"And 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 to enlarge the definition of marriage... 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.."

Do you understand what a quote is? It's not the same as, say, a paraphrase.

Also, as WorldWatcher pointed out, New York plus 11 other states does not equal 11 states, it equals 12.

Right, I forgot. The LGBT cult was claiming at the time that California made 13. Except that 12 does not equal 13. So there's that also.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Skylar continually corrects Sil's never-ending attempt to corrupt the actually meaning of Windsor.

Good for us.

Sil, 37 does not make 38 or 36, but the fact remains that when you began your crusade, less than 10 states had marriage equality. Now it is almost 40 and will be 50 by June.

You are obviously helping the other side by your failure to argue well for your point of view.

 

[Montrovant]

United States v. Windsor

Opinion page 14
"And 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 to enlarge the definition of marriage... 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.."

Do you understand what a quote is? It's not the same as, say, a paraphrase.

Also, as WorldWatcher pointed out, New York plus 11 other states does not equal 11 states, it equals 12.

Right, I forgot. The LGBT cult was claiming at the time that California made 13. Except that 12 does not equal 13. So there's that also.

Lovely deflection!

 

[Skylar]

United States v. Windsor

Opinion page 14
"And 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 to enlarge the definition of marriage... 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.."

Do you understand what a quote is? It's not the same as, say, a paraphrase.

Also, as WorldWatcher pointed out, New York plus 11 other states does not equal 11 states, it equals 12.

Right, I forgot. The LGBT cult was claiming at the time that California made 13. Except that 12 does not equal 13. So there's that also.

More, you tried to portray the court noting that NY and 11 other states had decided to extend marriage to gays as a ruling from the court that 'gay marriage was only legal in 11 states'. That you insisted was the 'law of the land'.

I can't stress this point enough, Silo.....but you don't know what you're talking about.