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

[JakeStarkey]

^That^

 

[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.

Lovely deflection!

Your hands clapping is a deflection in itself.

It helps to keep you from addressing that as of the Decision on Windsor in 2013, the "12 states" that Windsor affirmed were the only ones that had legal gay marriage via their states' separate decisions, did not include the 13th one LGBTers were claiming at the time: California. It was not included in Windsor's dialogue as having legal gay marriage by consensus.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, that is not Windsor affirmed, Sil, as much as you think otherwise. Refer to Skylar for correction of your nuttiness.

 

[Silhouette]

Skylar vs the Supreme Court in Windsor 2013...which one is dominant on the specific question of law (states' choice vs fed mandate)?..hmm... Tough one..

 

[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!

Your hands clapping is a deflection in itself.

It helps to keep you from addressing that as of the Decision on Windsor in 2013, the "12 states" that Windsor affirmed were the only ones that had legal gay marriage via their states' separate decisions, did not include the 13th one LGBTers were claiming at the time: California. It was not included in Windsor's dialogue as having legal gay marriage by consensus.

Your understanding of deflection seems about as strong as your understanding of quotes.

I never brought up nor discussed what 'LGBTers were claiming' about the number of states with gay marriage. That is a deflection : bringing up a new subject in order to avoid commenting on the current subject. The current subject was your use of quotations for something which was not a quote and your claim of 11 states having gay marriage at the time of the Windsor decision when it was, in fact, 12. While you have, sort of, admitted your mistake as to the number of states, you still have not addressed your continuous misuse of quotations for statements that are in no way quotes.

As to your deflection about LGBTers claims, I don't know what you are talking about nor do I particularly care. I put little stock in what you say LGBTers (a silly appellation) did or did not claim, without any evidence, about a subject that you brought up merely to avoid discussion of your own mistakes. You have shown, repeatedly, that you are unable or unwilling to accept the statements of the USSC, so why I'd believe you about what anyone else has to say is beyond me.

 

[Skylar]

Skylar vs the Supreme Court in Windsor 2013...which one is dominant on the specific question of law (states' choice vs fed mandate)?..hmm... Tough one..

Its not me vs. the Windsor ruling. Its me vs. your batshyte imaginary version of the WIndsor ruling. Where you make up imaginary passages and omit anything you don't like.

And I've consistently won in the latter contest.

 

[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.

Lovely deflection!

Your hands clapping is a deflection in itself.

It helps to keep you from addressing that as of the Decision on Windsor in 2013, the "12 states" that Windsor affirmed were the only ones that had legal gay marriage via their states' separate decisions, did not include the 13th one LGBTers were claiming at the time: California. It was not included in Windsor's dialogue as having legal gay marriage by consensus.

The court never found that the 12 states were the 'only states' to have legalized gay marriage. You're adding words they never used. And then insisting that your imaginary additions are the 'law of the land'.

Um, no. They aren't. The USSC never ruled on the constitutionality of gay marriage bans in the Windsor ruling. Or even mentioned them. The specific legal question that Windsor addressed was the applicability of federal law prohibiting gay marriage when state law allowed it.

All your other babble is you citing yourself. And you're nobody. What you ignore doesn't change any ruling. What you imagine and add doesn't change any ruling. As you're irrelevant to this entire process. The USSC justices aren't. And they are highly unlikely to ignore themselves in favor of whatever pseudo-legal gibberish you've made up this week.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Skylar vs the Supreme Court in Windsor 2013...which one is dominant on the specific question of law (states' choice vs fed mandate)?..hmm... Tough one..

SCOTUS aligns with Skylar and turns Sil into the alley.

 

[Silhouette]

Skylar vs the Supreme Court in Windsor 2013...which one is dominant on the specific question of law (states' choice vs fed mandate)?..hmm... Tough one..

SCOTUS aligns with Skylar and turns Sil into the alley.

Do me a favor. Count the number of times the Opinion of Windsor refers to marriage being the decision, power and realm of authority of the states over the fed.

Go ahead. Start on page one of the Opinion and log each time the Court refers to this concept. I'll try my own tally and see what I come up with. Then we can compare. United States v. Windsor

 

[Syriusly]

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!

Your hands clapping is a deflection in itself.

It helps to keep you from addressing that as of the Decision on Windsor in 2013, the "12 states" that Windsor affirmed were the only ones that had legal gay marriage via their states' separate decisions, did not include the 13th one LGBTers were claiming at the time: California. It was not included in Windsor's dialogue as having legal gay marriage by consensus.

Really- you can't actually be this stupid?

California was not one of the 13th named because at the time that the Windsor decision was being written- the Supreme Court had not yet announced its decision on Prop 8....so no mention of California.

another Silhocination

 

[Syriusly]

Skylar vs the Supreme Court in Windsor 2013...which one is dominant on the specific question of law (states' choice vs fed mandate)?..hmm... Tough one..

SCOTUS aligns with Skylar and turns Sil into the alley.

Do me a favor. Count the number of times the Opinion of Windsor refers to marriage being the decision, power and realm of authority of the states over the fed.

Go ahead. Start on page one of the Opinion and log each time the Court refers to this concept. I'll try my own tally and see what I come up with. Then we can compare. United States v. Windsor

1) 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.

Really no need to go any further.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Skylar vs the Supreme Court in Windsor 2013...which one is dominant on the specific question of law (states' choice vs fed mandate)?..hmm... Tough one..

SCOTUS aligns with Skylar and turns Sil into the alley.

Do me a favor. Count the number of times the Opinion of Windsor refers to marriage being the decision, power and realm of authority of the states over the fed.

Go ahead. Start on page one of the Opinion and log each time the Court refers to this concept. I'll try my own tally and see what I come up with. Then we can compare. United States v. Windsor

Refer to Skylar, Sil, when you get done counting so he can explain quantification and qualification of tallying and what it all means.

 

[Skylar]

Do me a favor. Count the number of times the Opinion of Windsor refers to marriage being the decision, power and realm of authority of the states over the fed.

Over the fed what? Over federal legislation. And no one contests this.

Not once does the Windsor ruling refer to marriage being the decision, power and realm of authority of the states over the federal judiciary or over constitutional guarantees. The Windsor ruling instead explicitly states that State marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees and even cites as an example a court case called 'Loving v. Virignia' in which State marriage laws were overturned by the federal judiciary for violating such constitutional guarantees.

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393.

Windsor v. US

You always omit any mention of these guarantees in the Windsor ruling, pretending that they don't exist. Which is pointless. Each of the 4 challenges to the 6th district's ruling affirming gay marriage bans that the USSC agreed to hear in April being are on the basis of that these bans violate constitutional guarantees.

Making state marriage legislation's supremacy over federal marriage legislation completely irrelevant. As its the violation of constitutional guarantees by these same sex marriage bans which are the specific legal question being addressed by the courts this year. A question the USSC didn't address or even mention in the WIndsor ruling.

You can ignore any mention in constitutional guarantees in the Windsor decision. But you can't make us ignore them. And you certainly can't make the SCOTUS ignore them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, read this again before you post: "Not once does the Windsor ruling refer to marriage being the decision, power and realm of authority of the states over the federal judiciary or over constitutional guarantees."

 

[Silhouette]

1) 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.

Really no need to go any further.

OK, that's once, with the Opinion ending with New York & 11 other states ONLY having legal gay marriage..

vs the 56 times the Court said in Windsor 2013 that this specific question of law was up to the states to decide: Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout State Authority vs Federal US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Skylar]

1) 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.

Really no need to go any further.

OK, that's once, with the Opinion ending with New York & 11 other states ONLY having legal gay marriage..

The ruling doesn't say this. In fact, marriage in NY and 11 other states was legal for gays and for straights. The word 'only', that you keep fallaciously adding, that you even capitalize.....was never used in the Windsor ruling in regarding to NY State's decision to recognize gay marriage. You imagined it.

The Windsor court never ruled on the constitutionality of gay marriage bans. Or even mentioned them. Thus, all of your assumptions about such state bans being constitutional is more of your imagination.

And your imagination is legally irrelevant.

vs the 56 times the Court said in Windsor 2013 that this specific question of law was up to the states to decide: Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout State Authority vs Federal US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

With the Court insisting that State marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees. You can't get around that. You're entire basis of argument now is to ignore this passage of Windsor and pretend that because you ignore it, the courts will as well.

Um, no. They won't. Nor have they.

The Windsor court never once insisting that state marriage laws trump the federal judiciary or any constitutional guarantee. But only federal marriage laws. You ignore this too. There's no reason the courts will. As your willful ignorance in no way limits the Windsor ruling, or any future federal ruling.

Get used to the idea.

 

[Silhouette]

56 references to state's supremacy over the fed on the specific question of gay marriage Skylar...

..pretty impressive..

 

[Skylar]

56 references to state's supremacy over the fed on the specific question of gay marriage Skylar...

..pretty impressive..

56 references to State marriage laws being supreme over federal marriage laws, according to you.

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

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

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393.

Windsor v. US

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

Every single one. Pretty impressive.

 

[Syriusly]

1) 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.

Really no need to go any further.

OK, that's once, with the Opinion ending with New York & 11 other states ONLY having legal gay marriage..

Like I said before-

1) 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.
Really no need to go any further.

 

[Silhouette]

Like I said before-

1) 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.
Really no need to go any further.

And yet the Opinion ended with same-sex marriage only legal in 12 states (which didn't include California BTW)

So it's "same-sex marriage proponents" 1 (?) or 0 and.."state's rights proponents" 56 references in text.