11th Circuit Gears Up For Gay Marriage Case? SCOTUS?

[Silhouette]

That's a mention of lawful same sex marriages.

Now show us where there's any mention of same sex marriage bans. And then show us where the courts ruled that these bans were constitutional.

OK, but I just did. "Against this background" "in SOME states"...apply to law.

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..Against this background of lawful same-sex marriage in some States, the design, purpose, and effect of DOMA should be considered as the beginning point in deciding whether it is valid under the Constitution United States v. Windsor

 

[Skylar]

That's a mention of lawful same sex marriages.

Now show us where there's any mention of same sex marriage bans. And then show us where the courts ruled that these bans were constitutional.

OK, but I just did. "Against this background" "in SOME states"...apply to law.

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..Against this background of lawful same-sex marriage in some States, the design, purpose, and effect of DOMA should be considered as the beginning point in deciding whether it is valid under the Constitution United States v. Windsor

That's a discussion of arguments and lawful same sex marriage.

Where is any mention of a same sex marriage ban.....and where did the courts find that such bans were constitutional? As remember, the State's authority to define marriage is subject to certain constitutional guarantees per Windsor. And the lower courts that have overruled gay marriage bans have universally found that such bans violate those constitutional guarantees.

Where then is the court's affirmation that such gay marriage bans are constitutional? And please include the page number. This is at least the 10th time I've asked you this question. And you've never once been able to answer it.

 

[Silhouette]

Where is any mention of a same sex marriage ban.....and where did the courts find that such bans were constitutional?
.

BINGO!

The only constitutional-mention on the question of whether or not states get to decide via a deliberation pro or against gay marriage was just that. The SCOTUS found that states have that right. The issue of constitutionality on what the states decide pro or against was not resolved. Until it is, all that can be done is to suggest a change, not to remove the states' power to decide from underneath.

Until further notice, lower courts cannot overrule-by-anticipation that SCOTUS will changes its mind on a state deliberating gay marriage. Removing the power from a state to govern itself on a specific question of law so soon to a SCOTUS Ruling affirming a state's power to do exactly that is contempt, sedition and against federal procedure.

 

[Skylar]

Where is any mention of a same sex marriage ban.....and where did the courts find that such bans were constitutional?
.

BINGO!

That's not an answer. That's word salad. Where did the courts find that such bans were constitutional? If the courts didn't, then just admit as much.

As you've never been able to show us anywhere the courts even mentioned same sex marriage bans, let alone ruled that they were constitutional.

The only constitutional-mention on the question of whether or not states get to decide via a deliberation pro or against gay marriage was just that. The SCOTUS found that states have that right.

Subject to constitutional guarentees. Again, you keep omitting this portion of their ruling, as if by omitting it, it disappears. But the lower courts can still see it. And in fact, that portion of Windsor is the basis of ever lower court ruling overturning gay marriage bans.

As the lower courts found that such gay marriage bans violated those constitutional guarentees.

So where did the Windsor court ever find that gay marriage bans were constitutional? Without such a finding in their ruling, its a physical impossibility for the lower courts to be in comtempt of it. And no such finding exists. As Justice Roberts makes ludicriously clear:

The Court does not have before it, and the logic of its opinion does not decide, the distinct question whether the States, in the
exercise of their “historic and essential authority to define the marital relation,” ante, at 18, may continue to utilize the traditional definition of marriage

Justice Roberts, Dissenting
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf

There's nothing that you got right.

The issue of constitutionality on what the states decide pro or against was not resolved.

So how can the lower courts be in contempt of the Windsor decision for finding that such bans are unconstitutional.....when the Windsor courts never addresses the issue and didn't decide pro or against?

Do you see your problem here?

Until it is, all that can be done is to suggest a change, not to remove the states' power to decide from underneath.

That's pseudo-legal gibberish. The federal district courts aren't limited to 'suggestions' when ruling on the constitutionality of a given law. You just made that up. Pulled sideways out of your ass. The rulings of the federal district courts are authoritative in their districts unless overruled by a higher court. Which the USSC has refused to do for every court that has overturned gay marriage bans. As all were denied cert, without exceptoin.

But notice that the courts still haven't denied cert for the 6th federal district court that ruled that such gay marriage bans are constitutional. Now why would the USSC preserve every lower court ruling overturnning gay marriage bans......but have so far refused to do so for the lone ruling that such bans are constitutional?

One of these things is not like the others. Some of these things are kinda the same.

Until further notice, lower courts cannot overrule-by-anticipation that SCOTUS will changes its mind on a state deliberating gay marriage. Removing the power from a state to govern itself on a specific question of law so soon to a SCOTUS Ruling affirming a state's power to do exactly that is contempt, sedition and against federal procedure.

More pseudo-legal gibberish. The authority to rule on these issues is with the federal judiciary. The federal judicial power is held by ANY federal district court. It can be overruled by higher federal courts. But if all of these higher courts refuse to do so, the lower court ruling stands. And in the case of 6 of the Federal Districts, the higher courts have either upheld the overturning of gay marriage bans or have allowed lower court rulings overturning gay marriage bans to stand. With the USSC preserving every such ruling.

That you type 'until further notice' is meaningless jibber jabber. You have no idea what you're talking about. The federal courts can and will continue to adjudicate these issues until such time as the USSC rules definitively one way or the other. The restrictions you've imagined for the lower courts is non-existent blather, and in no way impacts their authority or duties.

 

[Silhouette]

So where did the Windsor court ever find that gay marriage bans were constitutional? Without such a finding in their ruling, its a physical impossibility for the lower courts to be in comtempt of it. And no such finding exists. As Justice Roberts makes ludicriously clear:

The Court does not have before it, and the logic of its opinion does not decide, the distinct question whether the States, in the
exercise of their “historic and essential authority to define the marital relation,” ante, at 18, may continue to utilize the traditional definition of marriage

Justice Roberts, Dissenting
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf

Yes, but the specific question of law that was before it "Do states have the right to weigh in arguments for and against gay marriage and reach a consensus" WAS addressed. And you know what they Found? That's right, that states DO have that right and that born from that right was how they found in favor of Edie Windsor.

Loving was brought up but not applied. The Court said at the end of its Decision that gay marriage was only legal in SOME states after what it considered was the right and proper backdrop for determining "some". And that backdrop was a statewide deliberative process where the citizens got to weigh in on the question.

In the mean time, while questions of constitutionality of banning gay marriage pend, lower courts may not remove that Avered right of a state to have a consensus on gay marriage. They may not anticipate a future Ruling by SCOTUS and say (particularly so soon) "yeah, we know that the Supreme Court said on the matter of gay marriage specifically, that states get to deliberate it pro and con and THAT is how it becomes legal" and then say "but we decided we're going to strip the states of that power in the interim in favor of gay-lifestyle marriages going forward without permission and deliberation of the states". That is overreach.

The burden is upon the gay lifestylists to prove up that theirs is more than behavioral. So far they have not done that. A state has a vested interest in marriage only for the sake of children involved. Stays should have been denied in the interim for those two reasons 1. Taking away a most recently Avered state-right to govern itself is no small matter. and 2. The reason these states must be allowed to govern themselves is for the protection of children caught up in the structural-change-to-marriage debate. A child in a gay household is stripped of the complimentary gender 100% of the time. A state has a right to incentivize, for their kids' best interest, a formative environment which guarantees both complimentary genders.

Suddenly lower courts are saying "you no longer get to incentivize the best formative environment for children...we are dictating that it's a free-for-all now!" Which is a BIG DEAL.

These lower courts know for instance, that polygamy, incest and other not-good environments for kids will be shoulder to shoulder with the cult of LGBT the moment the ink is dry. These lower courts are COMPLETELY disregarding how that will affect children into the experimental future. They COMPLETELY ignore data that shows a child's formative environment is everything in how they grow up to become a good citizen or a burden. They seem totally willing to strip states of their power to govern, what, less than two years after the ink is dry on Windsor? And willing to do that with blinders on with respect to WHY a state is even involved in marriage in the first place and HOW that involvement, stripped, will affect the children caught up in the guinea-pig experiment of "anything goes" marriages..

It is reckless, irresponsible and overreach.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yes, but the specific question of law that was before it "Do states have the right to weigh in arguments for and against gay marriage and reach a consensus" WAS addressed.

False the specific question of law that was presented to the SCOTUS was:

"QUESTION PRESENTED

Does 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,” deprive 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?"​

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/12-63-Windsor-Cert-Petition.pdf


The question presented to the court in Windsor was about FEDERAL Law, not state laws. Last I checked "U.S.C." stands for United States Code (i.e. Federal Law).

>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

That you type 'until further notice' is meaningless jibber jabber. You have no idea what you're talking about. The federal courts can and will continue to adjudicate these issues until such time as the USSC rules definitively one way or the other. The restrictions you've imagined for the lower courts is non-existent blather, and in no way impacts their authority or duties.

Windsor and Prop 8 were heard at the same time. SCOTUS knew Prop 8 was about the legality of allowing a state to decide or not on gay marriage. So in Windsor they said, what, like a dozen or more times that "the power and authority on this legal question rests with the states". Just once in Windsor they mentioned Loving but then "said" it didn't apply by stating what they did on page 14 of the Opinion. They said that the appropriate legal backdrop, the way to arrive at legal gay marriage or not is for a state to deliberate that matter amongst its citizens.....that legal gay marriage as of their writing was only true in SOME states (but not all). There must be a way to determine which states have legal gay marriage and which do not. Even you can deduce that.

Now, the stays they keep granting are curious because it would seem to suggest the Court is now second-guessing that stance. But their stating that point so many times in Windsor, about the "unquestioned authority" of states to decide this one specific legal question flys in the face of all that.

It will be an interesting development for a Court to overturn a state's right to govern itself on a specific matter of law in such short notice. It seems the burden must be upon those people wanting to remove a state's power to govern itself, to force that state to adopt a complete structural change to marriage where the state must then get out of the business of incentivizing marriage at all if it cannot incentivize the best formative environment for kids....and must instead incentivize an environment "as married" where the children in it are missing the complimentary gender as role model/parent 100% of the time. That's structurally the same as a state incentivizing single parents "as married"...

 

[Skylar]

That you type 'until further notice' is meaningless jibber jabber. You have no idea what you're talking about. The federal courts can and will continue to adjudicate these issues until such time as the USSC rules definitively one way or the other. The restrictions you've imagined for the lower courts is non-existent blather, and in no way impacts their authority or duties.

Windsor and Prop 8 were heard at the same time. SCOTUS knew Prop 8 was about the legality of allowing a state to decide or not on gay marriage. So in Windsor they said, what, like a dozen or more times that "the power and authority on this legal question rests with the states".

There are no mentions of same sex marriage bans in the Windsor ruling. There is no mention of prop 8 in the Windsor ruling. Absolutely zero.

Thus, any insinuation you're trying draw from the Windsor ruling regarding Prop 8 is purely your imagination.

The Windsor ruling was about DOMA, a federal law. And its definition and applicability. The question of the constitutionality of State same sex marriage bans was never mentioned in the Windsor ruling, never brought before the court, and never ruled on by the Windsor court. As Justice Roberts makes ludicrously clear:

The Court does not have before it, and the logic of its opinion does not decide, the distinct question whether the States, in the
exercise of their “historic and essential authority to define the marital relation,” ante, at 18, may continue to utilize the traditional definition of marriage

Justice Roberts, Dissenting
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf

Thus any conclusion that you want to draw on the Windsor ruling deciding the constitutionality of same sex marriage bans is purely your imagination.

Just once in Windsor they mentioned Loving but then "said" it didn't apply by stating what they did on page 14 of the Opinion

They courts never said that State marriage laws aren't subject to constitutional guarantees in the Windsor ruling. To the contrary, the courts explicitly said that State marriage laws WERE subject to constitutional guarantees in the Windsor ruling.

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, 404.

Windsor V. US

You keep ignoring the 'subject to constitutional guarantees' part of the ruling. And your refusal to acknowledge it doesn't change its applicability. It only demonstrates the willful ignorance that is the heart of your argument.

Now, the stays they keep granting are curious because it would seem to suggest the Court is now second-guessing that stance. But their stating that point so many times in Windsor, about the "unquestioned authority" of states to decide this one specific legal question flys in the face of all that.

They're only 'curious' if we follow your hallucinatory interpretation of the Windsor ruling. If we recognize that the courts didn't rule on the issues of the constitutionality of same sex marriage bans in Windsor (as Justice Roberts demonstrated for us so elegantly), their stays make perfect sense. The courts overturned DOMA's provisions banning gay marriage. And they've preserved every single lower court ruling overturning laws that ban gay marriage.

Without exception.

That's not 'curious'. That's consistent.

It will be an interesting development for a Court to overturn a state's right to govern itself on a specific matter of law in such short notice.

The issue of whether or not the USSC can overturn state marriage laws if those laws violate constitutional guarantees was decided nearly 50 years ago in the Loving decision. Of course they can. The only relevant question before the court regarding gay marriage bans is if they similarly violate constitutional guarantees.

If gay marriage bans do violate constitutional rights, they're invalid. Which is why you're consistently omitting the 'constitutional guarantees' part of the Windsor ruling. The courts, alas, won't.

It seems the burden must be upon those people wanting to remove a state's power to govern itself, to force that state to adopt a complete structural change to marriage where the state must then get out of the business of incentivizing marriage at all if it cannot incentivize the best formative environment for kids....and must instead incentivize an environment "as married" where the children in it are missing the complimentary gender as role model/parent 100% of the time. That's structurally the same as a state incentivizing single parents "as married"...

All they need do is demonstrate that gay marriage bans violate rights, and they win. As the States lack the authority to violate the rights of their citizens. Remember, rights trump powers.

 

[Skylar]

Yes, but the specific question of law that was before it "Do states have the right to weigh in arguments for and against gay marriage and reach a consensus" WAS addressed. And you know what they Found? That's right, that states DO have that right and that born from that right was how they found in favor of Edie Windsor.

That wasn't the question the court was presented with. This was:

Does 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,” deprive 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?"

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/12-63-Windsor-Cert-Petition.pdf

That's literally the question presented by Edith Windsor.

As usual, you simply have no idea what you're talking about. You simply aren't sufficiently informed on this topic to discuss it intelligently.

In the mean time, while questions of constitutionality of banning gay marriage pend, lower courts may not remove that Avered right of a state to have a consensus on gay marriage.

No such restrictions bind the lower courts on their assessment of the constitutionality of gay marriage bans. You just made those restrictions up pulled from your imagination. And your imagination has no legal authority. Nor relevance.

They may not anticipate a future Ruling by SCOTUS and say (particularly so soon) "yeah, we know that the Supreme Court said on the matter of gay marriage specifically, that states get to deliberate it pro and con and THAT is how it becomes legal" and then say "but we decided we're going to strip the states of that power in the interim in favor of gay-lifestyle marriages going forward without permission and deliberation of the states". That is overreach.

The lower courts rule on the cases that are before them. That's not 'overreach'. That's their job.

The burden is upon the gay lifestylists to prove up that theirs is more than behavioral.

More pseudo legal gibberish. There is no such requirement. You're inventing standards that don't exist, requirements that are completely imaginary. And they bind no one, nor necessitate that anyone do anything.

You don't know what you're talking about. You couldn't even accurately paraphrase the question before the court in the Windsor ruling, completely flubbing it.

Suddenly lower courts are saying "you no longer get to incentivize the best formative environment for children...we are dictating that it's a free-for-all now!" Which is a BIG DEAL.

The lower courts are saying that gay marriage bans violate the rights of gays and lesbians. And are thus, invalid. All the rest is just you citing yourself.

And you citing you really isn't a big deal.

 

[Silhouette]

I think I'm plenty informed on the topic to discuss it intelligently.

 

[Silhouette]

The lower courts are saying that gay marriage bans violate the rights of gays and lesbians. And are thus, invalid. All the rest is just you citing yourself.

Do the lower courts also consider polygamy bans to be unconstitutional Skylar? Just wondering.. LGBT lifestyles aren't superior to any other lifestyle.

The privelege of marriage is extended to those people who guarantee the best structure for who the state considers the most important people in marriage: children. Gay marraige like single parenthood guarantees that the children in those homes will be deprived of the complimentary gender for their own self-esteem (should they be of that gender) or learning to interact with the opposite gender 100% of the time. That's 100% of the time..

 

[Skylar]

The lower courts are saying that gay marriage bans violate the rights of gays and lesbians. And are thus, invalid. All the rest is just you citing yourself.

Do the lower courts also consider polygamy bans to be unconstitutional Skylar? Just wondering.. LGBT lifestyles aren't superior to any other lifestyle.

The issue before the lower courts isn't polygamy. But gay marriage bans. And the courts rule on the cases before them.

Notice you don't actually disagree with me on the basis of every federal court ruling overturning gay marriage bans. Which makes your conspicuous omission of any mention of the 'constitutional guarantees' that the State marriage laws are subject to all the more obvious. You're intentionally avoiding the issue despite it being the basis of every ruling you oppose.

Why?

The privelege of marriage is extended to those people who guarantee the best structure for who the state considers the most important people in marriage: children.

Marriage is a right. So says the USSC. And on issues of legal definition, you're nobody. While the USSC is legally authoritative.

Gay marraige like single parenthood guarantees that the children in those homes will be deprived of the complimentary gender for their own self-esteem (should they be of that gender) or learning to interact with the opposite gender 100% of the time. That's 100% of the time..

Irrelevant. As gays and lesbians are having kids anyway. The only question is....will their parents be married or not married when they do it. And the courts have already found that denying same sex parents their right to marry harms their children:

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 samesex 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

You can ignore the findings of the USSC. But its rather unlikely that the USSC will.

 

[Skylar]

I think I'm plenty informed on the topic to discuss it intelligently.

And as your comic misrepresentation of the specific legal question being answered by the Windsor decision demonstrated......what you think doesn't amount to much.

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

 

[Silhouette]

The issue before the lower courts isn't polygamy. But gay marriage bans. And the courts rule on the cases before them.
.

Either you are for "marriage equality" or you aren't. Which is it?

 

[Skylar]

The issue before the lower courts isn't polygamy. But gay marriage bans. And the courts rule on the cases before them.
.

Either you are for "marriage equality" or you aren't. Which is it?

You asked me what the lower courts ruled on polygamy. And as you well know, these cases aren't before the federal courts. Gay marriage is. So the lower courts have ruled on the cases that are before them.

From your bizarre shift to 'hypothetical cases' that the federal judiciary isn't actually hearing and away from any discussion of gay marriage, can I take it your imaginary interpretation of Windsor wasn't going so well?

 

[Syriusly]

I think I'm plenty informed on the topic to discuss it intelligently.

You think lots of things, but your imagination exceeds your knowledge.

 

[Syriusly]

The issue before the lower courts isn't polygamy. But gay marriage bans. And the courts rule on the cases before them.
.

Either you are for "marriage equality" or you aren't. Which is it?

Are you agains

That you type 'until further notice' is meaningless jibber jabber. You have no idea what you're talking about. The federal courts can and will continue to adjudicate these issues until such time as the USSC rules definitively one way or the other. The restrictions you've imagined for the lower courts is non-existent blather, and in no way impacts their authority or duties.

Windsor and Prop 8 were heard at the same time. SCOTUS knew Prop 8 was about the legality of allowing a state to decide or not on gay marriage. So in Windsor they said, what, like a dozen or more times that "the power and authority on this legal question rests with the states". Just once in Windsor they mentioned Loving but then "said" it didn't apply by stating what they did on page 14 of the Opinion..

No- the Supreme Court never said that "Loving" didn't apply.

Every time the Court mentions the power and authority of the state, the court also mentioned that it was subject to Constitutional guarantees- and one of those times it used Loving as an example.

And Windsor and Prop 8 were not heard at the same time- they were different cases.

Prop 8 was about marriage equality in California- and the Supreme Court left standing the ruling that Prop 8 was unconsitutional, thereby allowing gay marriages to resume.

Windsor/Doma was about the Federal government not being able to legislate marriage law.

 

[Silhouette]

No- the Supreme Court never said that "Loving" didn't apply.
.

They didn't say it did apply either. Loving was about race. LGBT and polygamy etc. are about lifestyles, not a static state of being. Ask Anne Heche..

 

[Skylar]

No- the Supreme Court never said that "Loving" didn't apply.
.

They didn't say it did apply either. Loving was about race. LGBT and polygamy etc. are about lifestyles, not a static state of being. Ask Anne Heche..

They offered the Loving decision as an example. That's what 'e.g.' means. It was a case that demonstrated that state marriage laws are subject to judicial review....and if they violate rights, the laws are invalid.

 

[Silhouette]

They offered the Loving decision as an example. That's what 'e.g.' means. It was a case that demonstrated that state marriage laws are subject to judicial review....and if they violate rights, the laws are invalid.

Odd then that they'd end up saying in Windsor that gay marriage was made legal by a statewide consensus weighing the pros and cons and by that route that gay marriage was only legal in "some States"..